Quick questions / Quick answers -- EU3

[unmerged(108879)]

OK, so I pretty much conquered/colonized all of Africa as Morocco, am way ahead of everyone in tech, economy, everything, and got bored as control of all Africa was my primary goal. However, while the early game was fairly challenging, the last 200 years or so (probably more), Castille has been under permanent war, with no end in sight. Portugal, Aragon ,and a Catholic Granada each occupy all of Castille's territory on the mainland, though I don't remember if they have any provinces at all that are not occupied or controlled by rebels (probably not). However, they never sue for peace. I feel that this made it a bit easy for me to expand, as Castille was my main threat in the early game. Is this a bug? 200+ years of war without suing for peace or being annexed or whatever feels kinda cheap to me.

 

[Ruanek]

Wars are supposed to end if there's no combat for 5 consecutive years, but I've seen some situations where a country is occupied by multiple countries for decades without peace. It's probably a bug. My solution was to load up as the enemy war leader and get a treaty. They won't individually because each nation wants to get more and doesn't realize that they can't because it's occupied by an ally who wants the same thing.

 

[Pewt]

Wars are supposed to end if there's no combat for 5 consecutive years, but I've seen some situations where a country is occupied by multiple countries for decades without peace. It's probably a bug. My solution was to load up as the enemy war leader and get a treaty. They won't individually because each nation wants to get more and doesn't realize that they can't because it's occupied by an ally who wants the same thing.

No, wars are only supposed to end if literally nothing happens for 5 years. No combat, no occupation, no blockades, etc.

 

[Ruanek]

No, wars are only supposed to end if literally nothing happens for 5 years. No combat, no occupation, no blockades, etc.

Ah, I didn't know about the no occupation part. That really doesn't make sense, though. No combat for 5 years is much more logical - why allow permanent occupation?

 

[Pewt]

Ah, I didn't know about the no occupation part. That really doesn't make sense, though. No combat for 5 years is much more logical - why allow permanent occupation?

Because otherwise you get dumb situations where people can take undefendable land and hold on to it by abusing game mechanics.

 

[Ruanek]

Because otherwise you get dumb situations where people can take undefendable land and hold on to it by abusing game mechanics.

That's so much better than the AI occupying a country for several decades (theoretically indefinitely), though. I'd rather have a better AI than remove one exploit, because there are so many other exploits anyway.

 

[Pewt]

That's so much better than the AI occupying a country for several decades (theoretically indefinitely), though. I'd rather have a better AI than remove one exploit, because there are so many other exploits anyway.

So fix the AI bug that causes them to stand around forever rather than forcing nations out of legitimate wars via an arbitrary metric.

 

[Ruanek]

So fix the AI bug that causes them to stand around forever rather than forcing nations out of legitimate wars via an arbitrary metric.

Well, it would probably be only a few lines of code to end a war with a white peace after no combat in 5 years (there's already something similar), while actually changing AI behavior would be far more difficult. It would be nice, obviously, but it would take a lot longer to fix.

 

[Pewt]

Well, it would probably be only a few lines of code to end a war with a white peace after no combat in 5 years (there's already something similar), while actually changing AI behavior would be far more difficult. It would be nice, obviously, but it would take a lot longer to fix.

Yes it would be harder, and it also wouldn't break lots of legitimate gameplay situations unlike just white peacing people out of blockades and occupation.

 

[Ruanek]

Yes it would be harder, and it also wouldn't break lots of legitimate gameplay situations unlike just white peacing people out of blockades and occupation.

What legitimate gameplay situations involve totally occupying an entire country for more than 5 years (blockading I see as being a bit gamey, too, but it's not as bad)?

 

[Pewt]

What legitimate gameplay situations involve totally occupying an entire country for more than 5 years (blockading I see as being a bit gamey, too, but it's not as bad)?

Who said completely occupying?

--

However, to fit your exact specification, occupying provinces for an extended period of time lowers the warscore cost of related peace deals.

 

[Ruanek]

Who said completely occupying?

--

However, to fit your exact specification, occupying provinces for an extended period of time lowers the warscore cost of related peace deals.

This entire time I've been talking about multiple AI nations fully occupying enemy nations and failing to sue for peace. And I think it was proven somewhere (probably a while ago, though) that it's far more efficient to just do another war than wait for the warscore value to drop by a tiny amount over a large period of time. I don't really want to dig up that thread, but if you think about how it works it makes sense.

 

[Pewt]

This entire time I've been talking about multiple AI nations fully occupying enemy nations and failing to sue for peace. And I think it was proven somewhere (probably a while ago, though) that it's far more efficient to just do another war than wait for the warscore value to drop by a tiny amount over a large period of time. I don't really want to dig up that thread, but if you think about how it works it makes sense.

It isn't always. Sometimes you can't get the same CB again, create the same circumstances again, or whatever. In addition, sometimes the thing you want to do has to be done in one war (vassalization, I'm looking at you).

And yes, I realize your original complaint was with multiple AI nations fullcapping castille, but your proposed solution would prevent partial occupation, blockades, etc, which has been my point all along.

 

[unmerged(213701)]

I read somewhere on these forums that it was possible to switch governments by letting rebels from an occupied province collapse your nation. I am bit unclear over the mechanics, does anyone know how this can be done?

 

[Ruanek]

It isn't always. Sometimes you can't get the same CB again, create the same circumstances again, or whatever. In addition, sometimes the thing you want to do has to be done in one war (vassalization, I'm looking at you).

And yes, I realize your original complaint was with multiple AI nations fullcapping castille, but your proposed solution would prevent partial occupation, blockades, etc, which has been my point all along.

Well, why not apply it only to the AI, then? If you really want to allow players to keep exploiting the system, fine. But it would be nice for the AI to not do it, especially because they don't have a reason for doing it.

 

[allan79]

What are the difference between hard and normal difficulty. I mean that there must some modifiers that makes AI more difficulte to play against?

 

[Ruanek]

What are the difference between hard and normal difficulty. I mean that there must some modifiers that makes AI more difficulte to play against?

Essentially, yes. Easier difficulties gives boosts to the player. Harder ones boost the AI, including turning off inflation for them.

 

[vasziljevics]

What are the difference between hard and normal difficulty. I mean that there must some modifiers that makes AI more difficulte to play against?

it's in /common/static_modifiers.txt

very_hard_ai = {
	land_morale = 0.5
	naval_morale = 0.5
	global_tax_modifier = 0.5
	max_war_exhaustion = -6
	war_exhaustion = -0.4
	badboy = -1
	global_manpower_modifier = 0.5
	missionary_placement_chance = 0.2
	officials = 1.0
	defensiveness = 1.0

so on very hard the AI gets +0.5 morale, +100% fort defense, +50% tax/manpower, +20% missionary chance, +1 magistrate/year, -0.4 WE/month (that's the most unfair in my opinion...) and -1 infamy/year - you can find the modifiers for all the other difficulties in this file as well.

 

[cotwell]

Two questions I hope are quick ;_)

1. Captured two provinces (Benin and Isle-de France) and had their CoTs disappear. I assume that that is because all the other nations abandoned the center. Correct?

2. Got a CB to enforce a PU, and the cost is 140%. Does this mean the target has vassals, or just that they are too big to swallow in one gulp? Or both? Or something else? Not quite sure how to get 140 warscore.

 

[Avindian]

Two questions I hope are quick ;_)

1. Captured two provinces (Benin and Isle-de France) and had their CoTs disappear. I assume that that is because all the other nations abandoned the center. Correct?

2. Got a CB to enforce a PU, and the cost is 140%. Does this mean the target has vassals, or just that they are too big to swallow in one gulp? Or both? Or something else? Not quite sure how to get 140 warscore.

1. Most probably. I've never personally seen a CoT disappear, but that would be the most likely reason.

2. You cannot get a cost of higher than 100%; you're out of luck as far as restoring the PU. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news