• 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.
i am still looking for daywalkers notes, but I found your notes and tests.

you state that POR with an expansion of 3

settled (tp) on 2 west african lands and tried to place a tp on cape verde, it failed 2 times to place a tp on the cape , but further along your tests, you indicate that the mainland areas where Tp to 6 and 5 while the cape was still "un tp".

you concluded by saying that no colonization took place because of the "lacking" 3rd cape TP.

these are my notes , i presume you will remember this test you did.

Pity the search ability has been removed from the forum.

have to look for yours as well now
 
It seems that bit directly contradicts what you said then, right at the front:

Yes, that is, what it is for, ‘expansion’
As the text says, this is the number of simultaneous province the ai tries to colonize. The number is not fully exact. Especially on low numbers, like 1-2 it might run as many as 3-4 colonies / tps at a time. On higher numbers, say 10, it is pretty accurate.

Meaning if expansion is 10, he will start as many as 10 colonies / TP at a time, before finishing any of them. That does not mean he will not finish any before reaching 10!
He will not begin any more before at least one has reached +1000 / level 6 TP.

Emphasis mine.
 
It seems that bit directly contradicts what you said then, right at the front:



Emphasis mine.

as i stated , best numbers is between 3 and 9

emphasis yours?...........you want me to find yours?
 
if the "return to capital" issue is the factor for late latency i see no reason why it should not be reduced to 0 or even REMOVED?why?

in an ai vs ai war, spanish capital to fail is unlikely to start with ( based on how ai moves and the capital central location). as for a human vs ai it is IRRELEVANT as well, since a human would plan taking capital in advance and thus siege it(assult it) way before spain gets ANY of its troops on the way to capital...

also spain never builts above level 2 fort there(mostly never above minimal actualy) wich makeas human vs ai war 100% pathetic. why would thus late game latency affect the WHOLE game ...is beyond me(no matter what nation the human plays)
 
if the "return to capital" issue is the factor for late latency i see no reason why it should not be reduced to 0 or even REMOVED?why?

in an ai vs ai war, spanish capital to fail is unlikely to start with ( based on how ai moves and the capital central location). as for a human vs ai it is IRRELEVANT as well, since a human would plan taking capital in advance and thus siege it(assult it) way before spain gets ANY of its troops on the way to capital...

also spain never builts above level 2 fort there(mostly never above minimal actualy) wich makeas human vs ai war 100% pathetic. why would thus late game latency affect the WHOLE game ...is beyond me(no matter what nation the human plays)

i never get latency, and i only have 1 gb ram, but then i also have nothing extra running in back ground and i always play with FOW on
 
i never get latency, and i only have 1 gb ram, but then i also have nothing extra running in back ground and i always play with FOW on

I have 512mb ram and also don't experience any latency, though I play with Fog of War off.
 
i never get latency, and i only have 1 gb ram, but then i also have nothing extra running in back ground and i always play with FOW on

please note the "late" part in case it might have been missed;)
latency only starts happening after or around 1700's(SP play, not sure how this could happen in MP if any diffrence at all). i know as a fact that many players do not play sp after 1700's, without assuming anything in particular. i only play GC so not sure if latency happens if starting with a later scenario.

at first the latency is bearable but increases more and more as times goes by. but post 1780's is LITERALY coming to a standstill. i play with fog of war "on" so i am not sure if that helps or not in itself( i consider fog of war as not desired since takes away from the flavour, just personal preference). when game comes to a standstill, the only way to "speed up" is to save, and reload. but this only works for a few days at best after getting in-game again, before latency becomes impossible to manage.

for eu2, i had been using same computer i did since almost 3 years ago and have 1.2gb RAM core2duo processor. i am 100% that this latency has nothing to do with computer technical details
 
Last edited:
please note the "late" part in case it might have been missed;)
latency only starts happening after or around 1700's(SP play, not sure how this could happen in MP if any diffrence at all). i know as a fact that many players do not play sp after 1700's, without assuming anything in particular. i only play GC so not sure if latency happens if starting with a later scenario.

at first the latency is bearable but increases more and more as times goes by. but post 1780's is LITERALY coming to a standstill. i play with fog of war "on" so i am not sure if that helps or not in itself( i consider fog of war as not desired since takes away from the flavour, just personal preference). when game comes to a standstill, the only way to "speed up" is to save, and reload. but this only works for a few days at best after getting in-game again, before latency becomes impossible to manage.

for eu2, i had been using same computer i did since almost 3 years ago and have 1.2gb RAM core2duo processor. i am 100% that this latency has nothing to do with computer technical details

Maybe it has to do with you using a core2duo, I have heard EU2 doesn't handle dual-core processors very well...

I am playing a game with the unlimited time patch + AGCEEP and am around 1920 now without experiencing any such problems.

Btw, have you tried implementing the changes suggested here to the appropriate ai in the saved game to see if speed improved?
 
Maybe it has to do with you using a core2duo, I have heard EU2 doesn't handle dual-core processors very well...

I am playing a game with the unlimited time patch + AGCEEP and am around 1920 now without experiencing any such problems.
Do you have any huge AI empires around? I generally notice a slowdown only whenever late-game Spain is at war.
 
Do you have any huge AI empires around? I generally notice a slowdown only whenever late-game Spain is at war.

Yes, Spain in particular is large in my game (owning much of historical Spanish America, though it lost Chile and parts of Mexico to England and Portugal, and Colombia got independent), being the second in score.
 
Do you have any huge AI empires around? I generally notice a slowdown only whenever late-game Spain is at war.

that's exactly what i am saying. however when playing as spain(or spain non-existent due to annexations) this latency obviouslly can not take place.

no offense to the previous poster, but please stop with computer related advices:rolleyes:. those do not get anything done and are not constructive on this issue. i am familiar with agceep inside-out(see the link in my signature), i usually do not post unless there is a need to do so such with constant latency wich, at least for me, takes away all the fun in actual attempting to finish a GC(if spain alive as AI).

edit.
on a funny note, my last games were as navarra, france, and portugal...obviouslly the decision to play this nations was taken out of consideration for beeing able to finsih off spain before latency could set in:D
 
Last edited:
as i stated , best numbers is between 3 and 9

emphasis yours?...........you want me to find yours?

You are dodging the issue. Like I said, I took issue with the idea that the Ai will do no colonizing until it has found exactly the number of available provinces that it has as its expansion value. That post of daywalker's clearly shows that to be false.
 
no offense to the previous poster, but please stop with computer related advices:rolleyes:. those do not get anything done and are not constructive on this issue. i am familiar with agceep inside-out(see the link in my signature), i usually do not post unless there is a need to do so such with constant latency wich, at least for me, takes away all the fun in actual attempting to finish a GC(if spain alive as AI).

I haven't took offense, but I was only trying to help you. In any case, have you tried modifying the AI in the way that has been suggested in this thread?
 
You are dodging the issue. Like I said, I took issue with the idea that the Ai will do no colonizing until it has found exactly the number of available provinces that it has as its expansion value. That post of daywalker's clearly shows that to be false.

confused , what part is false ?

this ?

Meaning if expansion is 10, he will start as many as 10 colonies / TP at a time, before finishing any of them. That does not mean he will not finish any before reaching 10!
He will not begin any more before at least one has reached +1000 / level 6 TP.


His term of colonies is not of colonists, but reference is land. he means placing Tp's.

meaning ( but i also recalling from memory the detailed text) with expansion of 10.............he will start 10, not 11 or 15 or 50, but he can start 2, 5 or 6 to level 6 tp until he finds 10 colonies to place at least 1 tp..
6 tp is what he states as finished.
But a colonist is sent only when you have 10 colonies with one or more tp's in each of them.

so as an example
colony #1 has 1tp
colony #2 has 3tp
colony #3 has 2tp
colony #4 has 5tp
colony #5 has 6tp
colony #6 has 6tp
colony #7 has 1tp
colony #8 has 1tp
colony #9 has 3tp
colony #10 has 4tp

It could look like this, 32 colonists sent to 10 colonies and still no commencement of a COLONY or a town.



The last sentence is the one which is an issue for me. does it mean that once he has found 10 , he will look for another 10 or does it mean he will look for 1 once 1 of the original 10 first becomes a colony ?

The issue for the SPA file changed from 6 to 30 ( do not know why) in expansion , even if we place only 1 tp in each , means a lot of dead money in sending a tp , a lot of time lost waiting for these colonists to be made available to the state so that they may be sent and for what outcome..........NO revenue to recover the costs outlayed.
 
Anyway, in the context of more important things...I thought the IDLF/Daywalker line on expansion values over 10 was that you only use them when you know the AI is capable of handling them.

I disagree for the sake of revenue ( or lack of) for the AI. a human will never waste this money on planting 1 or 2 tp in 30 plus colonies.

As yoda said, you use a high number to claim the lands , but does that bode well for the AI state.??
If we gave FRA a 30 in its first colonizing file, will it be good to see FRA gather 30 colonies.

The need is to find the correct number and IMO a number between 3 and 9 is the best,
3 for POR as a example
9 for SPA early on
3 for FRA
5 for ENG
etc etc