AGC-EEP Portugal and West Africa

[unmerged(6159)]

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.

I think there ought to be some sort of B choice based on the real life situation. Basically Portugal handed the forts over because they deperated wanted help in their war against Spain, and because it was becoming increasingly difficult to defend them. But by all means try to make B harsher - as is it's a bit easy.

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.

Here they are - in ENG's event file

##Catherine of Braganza Events##
## Created by Johnny Canuck   ##

#A Dowry of Territory from Catherine of Braganza#
event = {

	id = 21081
	random = no
	country = ENG
	name = "EVENTNAME21081"
	desc = "EVENTHIST21081"
	style = 3

	action_a ={
		name = "ACTIONNAME21081A"
		command = { type = relation which = POR value = 100 }
		command = { type = relation which = SPA value = -100 }
		command = { type = relation which = HOL value = -50 }
		command = { type = stability value = 1 }
		command = { type = dynastic which = POR }
	}
}

#A Dowry of Ducats from Catherine of Braganza#
event = {

	id = 21082
	random = no
	country = ENG
	name = "EVENTNAME21082"
	desc = "EVENTHIST21082"
	style = 3

	action_a ={
		name = "ACTIONNAME21081A"
		command = { type = treasury value = 200 }
		command = { type = relation which = POR value = 50 }
		command = { type = relation which = SPA value = -50 }
		command = { type = relation which = HOL value = -25 }
		command = { type = stability value = 1 }
		command = { type = dynastic which = POR }
	}
}

#The Spurning of Charles II#
event = {

	id = 21083
	random = no
	country = ENG
	name = "EVENTNAME21083"
	desc = "EVENTHIST21083"
	style = 3

	action_a ={
		name = "ACTIONNAME21083A"
		command = { type = relation which = POR value = -50 }
	}
}

I propose the trigger I pointed out above be reomoved.

I think it might make more sense to change the way the ahistorical event happens. The dates certainly should be broadened as it's too easy to avoid the cessions right now.

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.

No. The second event has a trigger that Portugal owns neither of Bombay or Tangiers. Clearly if it doesn't own the provinces it shouldn't be able to cede them.

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.

No sure why we set it up that way. You ought to have a looka t the original discussion. I'll post a link soon.

But I agree that these events are basically unsatisfactory. Having another look at them is worthwhile.

 

[Norrefeldt]

A few questions on the colonisationa and discoveries of Portugal in the 15th century. One of their early leaders is:

}
	historicalleader = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 09601 }
	category = explorer
	name = "Gonçalo Velho"
	startdate = {
	year=1432
	}
	deathdate = {
	year=1435
	}
	rank = 10
	movement = 2
	fire = 1
	shock = 1
	siege = 0
	remark = "Discovered the Azores."
}

I've read that it's actually been questioned if he discovered the Azores, but that doesn't matter here. Portugal get the freebie of knowing the Azores from start, so they shouldn't get this explorer as well then. I suggesthe's made dormant, since we might use him, together with a new map. They get Gil Eanes 1433, so they should have no problems in discovering what they need to, in fact, they explore way too early.

 

[unmerged(49930)]

in fact, they explore way too early.

Yes. I am working on a 1453 scenario and what I have read is by that time their discovery is not far than mouth of Senegal. No settlement on Cape Verde till 1462.

Expedition after expedition was sent forth throughout the 15th century to explore the coast of Africa. In 1445 the Portuguese navigator Dinís Dias reached the mouth of the Sénégal, which "men say comes from the Nile, being one of the most glorious rivers of Earth, flowing from the Garden of Eden and the earthly paradise." Once the desert coast had been passed, the sailors pushed on: in 1455 and 1456 Alvise Ca' da Mosto made voyages to Gambia and the Cape Verde Islands. Prince Henry died in 1460 after a career that had brought the colonization of the Madeira Islands and the Azores and the traversal of the African coast to Sierra Leone.

 

[sturmvogel]

I'm coming to the same conclusion, especially with the Ocean Currents. I'm sending one explorer west once I link up to Cape Verde and finding the sugar islands not later than the 1440s which is a half-century too early. I'm also getting to the Bight of Benin about that same time.
I think we need to do something about all this ahistorical exploring by sleeping/eliminating explorers and/or reconsidering the starting knowledge of the Azores and Cape Verde.

Jason

 

[sturmvogel]

Reining in the explorers

I found a couple of decent websites on the early Portugese explorations and the most important fact is that the Portugese hadn't explored past Leone in the south or further west than the Azores and the Cape Verde islands. In every game I've played as the Portugese I've usually managed to discover land in either the Carribean (especially using Fodoron's Oceanic Currents) or in Brazil by the mid 1440s. Plus worked down to about Senegal or Leone by that same time.
I really think we need to consolidate the multitude of early explorers that are available to the Portugese so that players really can't do more than was historically accomplished. This would include forcing the Portugese to focus on find the Azores and Cape Verde early as I believe that neither should have any settlements on them or even be known. Apparently the latest research has changed the date of discovery of the Azores to around 1427 by Gonçalo Velho rather than 1432 as currently given. Let's force the players to recreate this; it will give them something productive to do and if we reduce the standard dates for these explorers down to 2 years rather than 3 it will force the players to focus their efforts and hopefully minimze the exceedingly early colonization of the Americas.
I'll try to provide some suggestions for consolidating the explorers when I play a game modified to hide the Azores and Cape Verde.

I have no idea how this might effect the AI, but let's worry about that later.

Jason

 

[Norrefeldt]

What website did you use, could you provice the links?

If we rein in the player, so he'll only be able to achive what was historically done, then we without a doubt wil get the AI to underperform badly, a compromise is needed.
The set-up as it is now is to give the AI a possibility to achive well, and any changes have to focus on that as much as we focus on the player. The knowledge of the Azores was set-up as it is since it wasn't part of the Portuguese ToT and they would never colonise it. ToT is now moddable, and we could try removing the knowledge and make it part of the ToT. But not without testing.
I think the reason to have them discover further south along the African coast than the did that early was to prevent colonisation in the Saharan provinces, since that will just drag them down in economy and tech. But since the AI waste a lot of men in the Cameroon area, discovery as far south as Casamance province would give them three good spots early on.
Fernando Po and Cameroon area was reached 1472 IIRC.
The multitude of explorers the Portuguese Ai has now, lead it to run out of areas to explore, and they will be sent of in random directions, which is bad. I've twice seen them discover America before the Spanish.

I plan to do another, third test with Fodoron's Ai files, then start to try out some changes.

 

[sturmvogel]

Norrefeldt,
The basics were theses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Portuguese_explorer_stubs for basic data
http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/discovery/africa.html for some more detail.

Right now I'd guess that Baldaia and Cadamosto should be eliminated as they duplicate Eannes and other explorers. Velho should move to 1427 and only last one year or two to discover the Azores.

What file has the ToT limits?

I agree that the AI could well suffer, but I'm not opposed to a helping hand. Deleting the focus on Cameroon should help them avoid getting bogged down there. And I'm not really sure that any of their activities in West Africa really involved anything more than cheap TPs until they get the the conquistador in Leone. At which time the AI should switch focus to colonization, if that can be coded.

Jason

 

[Toio]

Norrefeldt,
The basics were theses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Portuguese_explorer_stubs for basic data
http://www.win.tue.nl/~engels/discovery/africa.html for some more detail.

Right now I'd guess that Baldaia and Cadamosto should be eliminated as they duplicate Eannes and other explorers. Velho should move to 1427 and only last one year or two to discover the Azores.

What file has the ToT limits?

I agree that the AI could well suffer, but I'm not opposed to a helping hand. Deleting the focus on Cameroon should help them avoid getting bogged down there. And I'm not really sure that any of their activities in West Africa really involved anything more than cheap TPs until they get the the conquistador in Leone. At which time the AI should switch focus to colonization, if that can be coded.

Jason

I oppose this, and I would like to amend all POR and SPA explorers deathdate by adding 2 years to each, this way it avoids explorers dying in port while another is exploring.

they do not get bogged down if you set the areas of exploration correctly. its not a matter of removing explorers , but guiding them to where you want them to go.

 

[Toio]

What website did you use, could you provice the links?

If we rein in the player, so he'll only be able to achive what was historically done, then we without a doubt wil get the AI to underperform badly, a compromise is needed.
The set-up as it is now is to give the AI a possibility to achive well, and any changes have to focus on that as much as we focus on the player. The knowledge of the Azores was set-up as it is since it wasn't part of the Portuguese ToT and they would never colonise it. ToT is now moddable, and we could try removing the knowledge and make it part of the ToT. But not without testing.
I think the reason to have them discover further south along the African coast than the did that early was to prevent colonisation in the Saharan provinces, since that will just drag them down in economy and tech. But since the AI waste a lot of men in the Cameroon area, discovery as far south as Casamance province would give them three good spots early on.
Fernando Po and Cameroon area was reached 1472 IIRC.
The multitude of explorers the Portuguese Ai has now, lead it to run out of areas to explore, and they will be sent of in random directions, which is bad. I've twice seen them discover America before the Spanish.

I plan to do another, third test with Fodoron's Ai files, then start to try out some changes.

Fix your POR files as I have done and they do not run out of areas to explore.

FIX the areas of exploration. if you do not know how to do it ,I sent copies of changes needed on the new AI test thread for fodoran.

I test what most people place on these forums, do you?

DO Not change any POR explorers.

 

[Toio]

I found a couple of decent websites on the early Portugese explorations and the most important fact is that the Portugese hadn't explored past Leone in the south or further west than the Azores and the Cape Verde islands. In every game I've played as the Portugese I've usually managed to discover land in either the Carribean (especially using Fodoron's Oceanic Currents) or in Brazil by the mid 1440s. Plus worked down to about Senegal or Leone by that same time.
I really think we need to consolidate the multitude of early explorers that are available to the Portugese so that players really can't do more than was historically accomplished. This would include forcing the Portugese to focus on find the Azores and Cape Verde early as I believe that neither should have any settlements on them or even be known. Apparently the latest research has changed the date of discovery of the Azores to around 1427 by Gonçalo Velho rather than 1432 as currently given. Let's force the players to recreate this; it will give them something productive to do and if we reduce the standard dates for these explorers down to 2 years rather than 3 it will force the players to focus their efforts and hopefully minimze the exceedingly early colonization of the Americas.
I'll try to provide some suggestions for consolidating the explorers when I play a game modified to hide the Azores and Cape Verde.

I have no idea how this might effect the AI, but let's worry about that later.

Jason

These ideas are a huge step backwards, I am talking huge.

I think you need to test your ideas and you will find your are in error.( hope you test at least to 1550, because it will look fine to 1440) The EU2 engine does not have the TIME to discover, so we need to "advance" its area of discovery.

the basis of portuguese exploration for the EU2 is to get to china by 1515 and Japan by 1545. If we modders do not advance the AI (for POR) exploration years ahead of history you will never get to China and Japan because there will be NO exploreres left for portugal.

 

[Toio]

I'm coming to the same conclusion, especially with the Ocean Currents. I'm sending one explorer west once I link up to Cape Verde and finding the sugar islands not later than the 1440s which is a half-century too early. I'm also getting to the Bight of Benin about that same time.
I think we need to do something about all this ahistorical exploring by sleeping/eliminating explorers and/or reconsidering the starting knowledge of the Azores and Cape Verde.

Jason

WHo cares what you do with the way you use explorers, your comments should be on what THE AI IS DOING.

 

[sturmvogel]

Toio,
I'm well aware that these changes might adversely impact the AI's exploration. But because I don't know enough about how the AI works, I can't make any worthwhile comments on how to get the AI to China by 1515. Although I will note that there was an extensive thread on suggested changes to Portugal's AI to recreate their historical achievements a while back that doesn't seem to have been implemented.

As for how the human player uses his explorers, that _is_ the game for me because I want realistic options to decide between. If any game allows me to do things well in advance of what was even possible then that's a real problem. Since EU is so easily mod-able it seems worthwhile to try and fix things rather than relegating it to my dusty shelves.
I love alternate history and I really like what EU is capable of doing. But it isn't at least semi-realistic within the constraints of the game then there's a real problem. And, to my mind, being able to explore, as Portugal, most of the eastern Caribbean islands, plus part of Brazil's NW coast, and still reach the Congo in the 1440's, all at the same time is bullshit. If the Portugese were only at Sierra Leone by 1460 then that's what the game should allow them to do. Now if they'd decide to take advantage of the currents to go west instead of south, that should be an option available to the player. But not to do both.

Jason

 

[Toio]

Toio,
I'm well aware that these changes might adversely impact the AI's exploration. But because I don't know enough about how the AI works, I can't make any worthwhile comments on how to get the AI to China by 1515. Although I will note that there was an extensive thread on suggested changes to Portugal's AI to recreate their historical achievements a while back that doesn't seem to have been implemented.

I know how it works and my files do get me to china by the correct year.

the problems are not the explorers , but where they are exploring

As for how the human player uses his explorers, that _is_ the game for me because I want realistic options to decide between. If any game allows me to do things well in advance of what was even possible then that's a real problem. Since EU is so easily mod-able it seems worthwhile to try and fix things rather than relegating it to my dusty shelves.
I love alternate history and I really like what EU is capable of doing. But it isn't at least semi-realistic within the constraints of the game then there's a real problem. And, to my mind, being able to explore, as Portugal, most of the eastern Caribbean islands, plus part of Brazil's NW coast, and still reach the Congo in the 1440's, all at the same time is bullshit. If the Portugese were only at Sierra Leone by 1460 then that's what the game should allow them to do. Now if they'd decide to take advantage of the currents to go west instead of south, that should be an option available to the player. But not to do both.

Jason

so, if I was to play Portugal and send my explorers to discover canada, 100 years before time, then what point am I making.??? ZERO
Do I say that the explorers are too many, or did you want the engine to deny me that access.
As for denial of areas for humans, ??, the AI have its denied area by its AI file.

2) events and changes are written to see how the AI plays historically and not how a human plays, I do not care what you, me or anyone else does because we are all different. plus we have a tendency to not go historical.
If you want to go truly historical, then firstly go and remove all the actions for all the events for every nation and leave only the historical choices.

3) why not play like the AI does. ie have your own restrictions. do not send out more than 1 explorer at a time (leave rest in port) until the explorer decides to return to port. then send another. try this and see if it is historical for you. This is what the AI has to put up with.

4) you are missing the point, the AI does not discover the caribeen early unless the AI file is badly written.(and it is) The AI follows its file for exploration exactly.
So your question that the AI gets to the caribeen before its time is wrong by you.
I use my POR files for the past 70 games and have never ever seen POR go to the caribeen but follow my instructions for exploration.
There is some leeway (in time) needed for POR to get to certain places ahead of time (due to distance) or else they do not meet other game goals.
eg
I have POR in
china 1515
all of india 1505
colonizing mozambigue 1480
etc etc etc

for explorers you need to set a target (area)you need to reach by a certain date and then work backwards from there.

 

[sturmvogel]

Talking past each other?

Toio,
I almost feel that we're talking past each other as I don't actually disagree with you. I agree that replicating the historical accomplishments is the key factor in the game. And we can't do that, either as the player or with the AI than things need to be fixed to make it so. And if we can do more than was historically possible that is also a major problem.
In your experience with the Portugese AI how far does it get by 1460? Past Leone? Past Walvis Bay? As a human player I can get down to about Walvis Bay, give or take, plus explore the Eastern Carribbean and parts of Brazil during the 1440s. This is wrong as the Portugese shouldn't be able to get past Leone by that date because that's as far as they got historically. So both the player and the AI should be limited to whatever combination of explorer/months that allows that to happen. Now if I as the player want to turn west or even northwest that's my perogative, but then I get the same explorer/months to discover whatever I can discover.

Maybe you feel that the system works well enough that it doesn't need to be fixed, but I profoundly disagree because the Portugese player is more than able to initiate colonization of Brazil, the Caribbean and West Africa all in the 1440s. He should only be able to initiate colonization of one, not all three!

If deleting some of the early Portugese explorers causes a problem for the AI in the long term then maybe we need to tweak some of the later explorers to enhance their abilities or maybe give the AI some events/bonuses to naval tech to allow its explorers to go further each month by the 1480s or 90s.

Jason

 

[17blue17]

suggestion for Sturmvogel and Toio

If I understand correctly the POR AI needs all the explorers and an early start to explore correctly while the human player maybe should have fewer explorers and start later? If so why not do what is done in EP and have the explorers wakened by event with some events/explorers only for the AI? That way it might work for both the AI and a human player. Its not really a ai cheat as the human player will use more than one explorer at a time while the AI only uses one at a time so it is really a way to make the ai and human even. Just a suggestion

 

[Toio]

In your experience with the Portugese AI how far does it get by 1460? Past Leone? Past Walvis Bay? As a human player I can get down to about Walvis Bay, give or take, plus explore the Eastern Carribbean and parts of Brazil during the 1440s. This is wrong as the Portugese shouldn't be able to get past Leone by that date because that's as far as they got historically. So both the player and the AI should be limited to whatever combination of explorer/months that allows that to happen. Now if I as the player want to turn west or even northwest that's my perogative, but then I get the same explorer/months to discover whatever I can discover.

-with my AI POR files, it is historical in date and exploration areas.

-with me playing, it is never historical

Maybe you feel that the system works well enough that it doesn't need to be fixed, but I profoundly disagree because the Portugese player is more than able to initiate colonization of Brazil, the Caribbean and West Africa all in the 1440s. He should only be able to initiate colonization of one, not all three!

As a player, you will need to show some integrity to the way the game should be played if you want it historical. If the AI is doing it historical, I wonder why you cannot you it as well, all other human players could be doing it historical as well.

for the one time you play POR, and you need to "cheat" shame on you.
The other games when you are another nation and AI POR performs historically , what do you say??


I am playing sweden at the moment and its 1500, I exchange discoveries with POR and have started to colonize west africa, shame on me for "cheating". Do you want to prevent a human player from doing this as well??

If deleting some of the early Portugese explorers causes a problem for the AI in the long term then maybe we need to tweak some of the later explorers to enhance their abilities or maybe give the AI some events/bonuses to naval tech to allow its explorers to go further each month by the 1480s or 90s.

if I get my way, I would like to see a few extra explorers especially where there are gaps in years and also a change of deathdates for the ones that overlap each other.

to conclude, an AI POR with an extra 20 explorers for the same period you mentioned will do the exact same thing as now, it is all in its AI files on what it explores.

The number of explorers we have now for POR was the testing done by many modders over hundreds of games.

In future, can you please not mention what you do with any nation you play as modders are only interested on what ills the AI does.

regards
victor

 

[unmerged(2456)]

In future, can you please not mention what you do with any nation you play as modders are only interested on what ills the AI does.

Technically that's not quite true. FE: If you routinely chose an unhistoric option because the historic one is worse, that should be something brought to our attention.

But yes, you will always outperform, if you know what you're doing, what the ai would do.

 

[Toio]

Technically that's not quite true. FE: If you routinely chose an unhistoric option because the historic one is worse, that should be something brought to our attention.

But yes, you will always outperform, if you know what you're doing, what the ai would do.

If the historic bad option is in action A , then with the AI choosing A 90% of the time, then its a further burden on the AI to match a human.

If you have the historic in action B , then the AI will choose a more favorable one from action A. and so will the human. (if you go down this road, then remove all actions except one)

In conclusion , (with bad events ), whats the point in either:
1) having these events
or
2)having more than one choice for these events. This is lunacy. Don't you think.

if an event has no historical action within its actions , then remove it. place it in fantasy land.

If an event (as you say above) is constantly being avoided by a human because its bad and the AI suffers, change it to reflect all to suffer from it.

 

[sabular]

In conclusion , (with bad events ), whats the point in either:
1) having these events
or
2)having more than one choice for these events. This is lunacy. Don't you think.

You can have multiple options in a bad event as long as they are all bad, perhaps bad in a different way, but at least bad.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

if an event has no historical action within its actions , then remove it. place it in fantasy land.

I'd say then atleast 25% of the events would have to be removed then because most cover ahistorical situations which therefore means anything in that event does is by that defination, fantasy.

If an event (as you say above) is constantly being avoided by a human because its bad and the AI suffers, change it to reflect all to suffer from it.

Which also needs to be brought up because it involves humans.