Yes, probably. What's the normal maximum, as well? I suspect things need to be scaled a bit more anyways.
The CK2 To EU3 Converter Project
- Thread starter Idhrendur
- Start date
-
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.
Yes, probably. What's the normal maximum, as well? I suspect things need to be scaled a bit more anyways.
Monarchs don't get higher than eight if they're normal, monarchs (heirs) given by event and republican leaders can get nine, but no more.
Nope. Its actually possible to get as high as 9/9/9 stats as a monarch. Its a myth perpetuated by players who don't actually play monarchies long enough to be graced with a good monarch. Its rarer to get 9s as a monarch than in a Republic, and said monarch is yours until he dies while a republic leader can be replaced every four years or so which increases the likelihood of getting a good ruler as well.
For the range, if one wants imput, I would suggest something like this:
Stewardship 0-6 = 3. 7-8 = 4, 9-10 = 5, 11-12 = 6, 13-14 = 7, 15-18 = 8, 19+ = 9.
Same with Martial and Diplomacy.
According to Johan's post in the EU3 5.2 beta forum, it is possible to get 9 stat monarchs. Since today.
You may have been confused by the fact that they can get nine if they are generated by event, like that one where you find a child in the reeds.
That said, I would give converted monarchs nines in special cases, since I think there might be some with nines in the history files.
I've received rulers with 9 stats once in a very blue moon since I started playing EU3 (I do not believe it was only through events). I see other monarchs have them as well. I've started with IN and have played HttT and DW, seeing 9s with absolute certainty in HttT and near certainty in IN. It doesn't seem likely that this could only happen since today when I've had it happen for over a year. :mellow:
That said, its an off topic speech. I agree that there's no reason to prevent rulers from having 9s in the transfer. Especially since the requirements to get a 9 would be very high if I'm not mistaken?
Depends on how the coding is... I expect a Ck2-->MMtG converter will be made eventually though, even if it might end up using very little code from this version.
I've uploaded version 0.2F to SourceForge. The major addition is seniority succession. I've forced the inclusion of the 'Lowborn' dynasty to make the log messages about no dynasty go away. I've also constrained EU3 stats to between 3 and 9. If a stat is changed to force it into this range, it's logged (with the original stat and a list of the CK2 stats) so we can try to make this happen less.
I may just turn off logging for increasing stats to 3 and accept that it happens a lot. What do you all think?
I may just turn off logging for increasing stats to 3 and accept that it happens a lot. What do you all think?
I'm not really clear on how different MM will be, so it's hard to tell. It may just be a matter of changing data files. It may require a wholly different converter. I really won't be able to tell until MM is out.
You shouldn't "force" a stat in to the this range. Rather you should convert it such that the very lowest CK2 stats will equal and EU3 stat of 3, and scaled accordingly. This way, characters with low (but not awful stats) can still be better than those characters that have legitimately awful stats, rather than those characters with awful stats being given a boost and now being made equal to their betters.
I think I've read in the EU3 forum that the game picks a number between one and eight (or one and nine), then those below three are rounded up to three.
I have nothing to do with the converter project but I randomly read this post and thought I might contribute my opinion as I think there is a relatively simple solution to the problem:
1: Count the number of provinces in the EU3 region that will be modified with a specific tax value (e. g. there might be 20 provinces with tax 1, 35 provinces with tax 2 etc.)
2: Rank the CK2 provinces by their respective sums of all tax bonuses and add a random decimal so that each province receives a unique rank.
3: Apply the CK2 provinces in order of their rank to the EU3 tax base categories.
This method has the advantage of retaining the EU3 base tax distribution as well as the average.
This is actually just a less precise version of the "weighting" idea, which we have used with many mechanics in many converters.
Shame, thought I could help out a bit. The only thing I cannot accept is the "less precise". My proposal transforms one distribution (CK2 tax bonuses) into another (EU3 tax base). It is based on the assumption that you would wish to maintain the exact distribution of EU3 base tax while maintaining the ordinal scale level (higher/lower) from the CK2 savegame and as such does sacrifice information from the CK2 stage for this purpose but that is a conscious prioritization. It is impossible to retain above ordinal scale level information for CK2 tax bonuses and the EU3 base tax distribution at the same time. If you prefer a different prioritization then I am fine with that - that's your design decision. But don't tell me that my proposal is a "less precise version" of something when it is the best possible way to achieve a specific effect.
Last edited:
The goal is to, as it were, "redistribute" the EU3 World's base taxes based on the tax income of the CK2 provinces, isn't it? Maybe I misunderstand your method. Can you provide an example calculation?
Version 0.2G uploaded. I think I've got stats fully under control (the caps are still there but never show up in the logs); changing the scaling factor from 3 to 6 seemed to constrain everyone. Also, 3 is added to each stat to enforce a stat floor. Hopefully the distribution is still good.
I've also implemented Feudal Elective succession. With some details yet to work out. What happens in the event of a tie? Does the title holder become the tie-breaker? Or does the title holder always have more than one vote? In which case, what happens in the event of a tie? :-D
Also, what's the deal with turkish succession? I've just got it and gavelkind to do.
I've also implemented Feudal Elective succession. With some details yet to work out. What happens in the event of a tie? Does the title holder become the tie-breaker? Or does the title holder always have more than one vote? In which case, what happens in the event of a tie? :-D
Also, what's the deal with turkish succession? I've just got it and gavelkind to do.
Yes. Let's assume this is about the conversion of the Austrian editions of CK2 to EU3 and the map has 9 provinces altogether. The provinces of the EU3 vanilla version have base taxes of 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6.
In categories that's:
Code:
EU3 Base Tax n
1 2
2 1
3 3
4 1
5 1
6 1
Code:
Province CK2 Tax Bonus Rank EU3 Base Tax Category
Salzburg 98 1+r => 6
Kärnten 98 1+r => 5
Steiermark 98 1+r => 4
Wien 95 4+r => 3
Burgenland 78 5+r => 3
Niederösterreich 56 6+r => 3
Vorarlberg 56 6+r => 2
Tirol 43 8+r => 1
Oberösterreich 2 9+r => 1
r... random value (the higher the variance of r the more "natural" the final result looks, maybe make it customizable)The advantage of this method is that it avoids ridiculous results like all player provinces having the same tax base after conversion since the relevant buildings have been maxed. In addition exceptional provinces (like Thrace or Wien in vanilla) remain an exception instead of becoming the rule. It may also help with balancing because it maintains the vanilla distribution of base tax.
Unrelated to that... to merge the tax bonuses of multiple provinces I'd propose the following formula: ((SUM(TAXBONUSES)/MAXPOSSIBLETAXBONUS/NUMBEROFPROVS)^(1/NUMBEROFPROVS+x))*MAXPOSSIBLETAXBONUS, with x being the advantage that multiple provinces are supposed to have over direct conversion provinces, my proposal being 1. This way multiple provinces are slightly richer than single provinces but not automatically the richest ones on the map.
Last edited:
Hmm, I'm sorry, but I don't see how this helps with balance.
If the three CK2 provinces have a base tax of 98, then shouldn't they all have the same base tax in EU3? Why not? Why randomise a tiebreaker? This is arbitrary, and means each conversion of the same game would give different base tax values for identical provinces. And Imagine these provinces are owned by different nations. One nation will get shafted with a different base tax value for the same CK2 tax income. This is not balanced.
This is quite deficient.And as for "ridiculous results like all player provinces having the same tax base after conversion since the relevant buildings have been maxed", well, if the player built all the buildings, why shouldn't he get the full effect? He raised the money, he spent the money, he built the structures - why would you then take this away from the player because of some aesthetic preference?
For the weighting method, imagine the same set of provinces (disregarding the rest of the old world for the sake of demonstration), then we have, in CK2, a total tax income of all the province is 624, so we have a tax weighting of the provinces in question:
Code:
Salzburg 98/624 = 0.15705
Kärnten 98/624 = 0.15705
Steiermark 98/624 = 0.15705
Wien 95/624 = 0.15224
Burgenland 78/624 = 0.125
Niederösterreich 56/624 = 0.08974
Vorarlberg 56/624 = 0.08974
Tirol 43/624 = 0.06891
Oberösterreich 2/624 = 0.00321The total EU3 base tax of the provinces is 28. Multiplied by the weigting, we get:
Code:
Salzburg 4.3974
Kärnten 4.3974
Steiermark 4.3974
Wien 4.26272
Burgenland 3.5
Niederösterreich 2.51272
Vorarlberg 2.51272
Tirol 1.92948
Oberösterreich 0.08988I would understand wanting to round up to avoid provinces with 0 base tax, and ensure integer values. The method ensures the relative tax power of the province on conversion is maintained, that it is balanced across the entire old world, and still balanced against the ROTW.
Again, this is a question of balance. The nation is in charge of these provinces in CK2, and therefore has a power equal to the sum total of these provinces. Again, why would you take this away from them on conversion, and remove a measure of their power, apparently again over and aesthetic preference?
Hmm, I'm sorry, but I don't see how this helps with balance.
Why randomise a tiebreaker? This is arbitrary, and means each conversion of the same game would give different base tax values for identical provinces. And Imagine these provinces are owned by different nations. One nation will get shafted with a different base tax value for the same CK2 tax income. This is not balanced.
And as for "ridiculous results like all player provinces having the same tax base after conversion since the relevant buildings have been maxed", well, if the player built all the buildings, why shouldn't he get the full effect? He raised the money, he spent the money, he built the structures - why would you then take this away from the player because of some aesthetic preference?
For the weighting method, imagine the same set of provinces (disregarding the rest of the old world for the sake of demonstration), then we have, in CK2, a total tax income of all the province is 624, so we have a tax weighting of the provinces in question:
Code:Salzburg 98/624 = 0.15705 Kärnten 98/624 = 0.15705 Steiermark 98/624 = 0.15705 Wien 95/624 = 0.15224 Burgenland 78/624 = 0.125 Niederösterreich 56/624 = 0.08974 Vorarlberg 56/624 = 0.08974 Tirol 43/624 = 0.06891 Oberösterreich 2/624 = 0.00321
The total EU3 base tax of the provinces is 28. Multiplied by the weigting, we get:
Code:Salzburg 4.3974 Kärnten 4.3974 Steiermark 4.3974 Wien 4.26272 Burgenland 3.5 Niederösterreich 2.51272 Vorarlberg 2.51272 Tirol 1.92948 Oberösterreich 0.08988
I would understand wanting to round up to avoid provinces with 0 base tax, and ensure integer values. The method ensures the relative tax power of the province on conversion is maintained, that it is balanced across the entire old world, and still balanced against the ROTW.
Again, this is a question of balance. The nation is in charge of these provinces in CK2, and therefore has a power equal to the sum total of these provinces. Again, why would you take this away from them on conversion, and remove a measure of their power, apparently again over and aesthetic preference?
As I said, it's simply a choice. If you want to have an impoverished HRE while the middle east suddenly is the richest region on the planet with Badiyat Ash Sham as the unparalleled center of the world as the rule in the converter then by all means please simply add up the provinces. But why do you even need a converter for that? You will already know ahead of time which provinces will be rich and poor. London? A rathole. Venice? Forget it. Wien? Unheard of. Thrace? We are sending them care packages.
But since that is merely aesthetic preference and you are mostly concerned about balance let's talk about that instead. You seem to assume that having tax base distributed over several provinces is the same as having it all concentrated into one. I can assure you it is not. The countries with a lot of "condensed" provinces would have a wonderful base tax/province rating which would allow them to achieve crazy tech speed. The EU3 Netherlands would be nothing compared to the dense pockets of base tax and man power you want to create. And these regions would pop up in the very same place, repeatedly, every game.
My proposal was intended to create a map that is based on the differentials of power in CK2 but not at the cost of plausibility and diversity. If we assume that players will usually max their provinces you would receive an absolutely predictably map with multiples of whatever the maximum of manpower and tax base is for one province for each and every province.
The relative wealth of nations and provinces in CK2 should be represented as accurately as possible on conversion. You want to avoid this because, if we do it this way, London might not reach the power and wealth it did IRL? This is a poor reason.