• Crusader Kings II Expansion Subscription

    Subscribe to the CK II Expansion and enjoy unlimited access to 13 major expansions and more!


  • Crusader Kings III Available Now!

    The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.


    Real Strategy Requires Cunning

unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
WiSK said:
I'm wondering if the example of Thrace might make him change his mind. Not entirely changed, but to accept that there might be situations which call for exceptions to his rule.
For your sake I hope so, but he didn't make exceptions for the German minors.
 

Norrefeldt

Porphyrogenitus
Aug 1, 2001
7.433
0
Visit site
idontlikeforms said:
I see. I actually meant your in plural(you being part of that plural). I know at least Twoflower has the same view. If it's not to much for me to ask, I was wondering if you guys actually voted on anything like this yet and if so what were the results?
No not yet. I think we will need to pretty soon.
 

Twoflower

Vile treacherous Judas
82 Badges
Nov 7, 2001
3.913
2.244
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II
  • For The Glory
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
WiSK said:
Yes, I'm aware Twoflower and Norreveldt both dislike subtractive events. However, I seem to remember, in the case of the secession of Porto, he argued that you weren't looking hard enough for another solution. I'm wondering if the example of Thrace might make him change his mind. Not entirely changed, but to accept that there might be situations which call for exceptions to his rule.
Well, since you asked for my opinion, I basically agree with Norrefeldt on this and feel an urge for consistency - everything else than either allowing all events that can be defined as "subtractive" (or however you may wanna call it) or rejecting all of them would be highly unfair and hypocrite. That said, I'll admit that right now I don't feel as strongly about these events as Norrefeldt does, and I think I'd still like playing the AGCEEP and contributing to it if a majority is in favour of including such events, although IMO it would be a better mod without them.
What we IMO need is a thread for a general discussion on this question and, eventually, a vote to settle it.
 

doktarr

Wet Blanket
16 Badges
Aug 3, 2003
2.071
33
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
In my opinion, the German minors require much more agressive scripting to maintain. In the case of Thrace or Oporto we're talking about a single event sequence that's not going to come up in many games. German independence events will come up in just about every single game, and if allowed they will probably come up more than once.
 
Last edited:

doktarr

Wet Blanket
16 Badges
Aug 3, 2003
2.071
33
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
Twoflower said:
Well, since you asked for my opinion, I basically agree with Norrefeldt on this and feel an urge for consistency - everything else than either allowing all events that can be defined as "subtractive" (or however you may wanna call it) or rejecting all of them would be highly unfair and hypocrite. That said, I'll admit that right now I don't feel as strongly about these events as Norrefeldt does, and I think I'd still like playing the AGCEEP and contributing to it if a majority is in favour of including such events, although IMO it would be a better mod without them.
What we IMO need is a thread for a general discussion on this question and, eventually, a vote to settle it.
OK let's start with relevant portions of the mission statement:
exceprts from most recent mission statement said:
...The AGCEEP strives to produce historical accuracy for all AGCEEP states with a demonstrably high probability, the value of which to be determined in the appropriate regional thread, or the HC if requested...

...The AGCEEP produces historical accuracy through the implementatation of realistic initial conditions, and event paths that represent realistic choices that facilitate historical outcomes. Highly deterministic implementations are used provided strong historical justification exists, or less deterministic correlates have failed to produce historical accuracy with high probabiblity. The value of which to be determined by the regional threads, or HC if requested...

...The AGCEEP improves AI performance by customizing AI and swapping customized AI files in-game to maintain or improve historical accuracy. Provided such measures fail, AI-only counterpart events may be employed to address a consistent AI shortcoming. AI-only help events that lack historical justification, or produce distinct event paths, are strongly disfavoured.
So, the questions would be, based on that:
  1. How what the minimum acceptable likelihood for the OE to capture Thrace and form something resembling their historical empire?
  2. Does historical justification exist for these events?
  3. How divergent is the AI path from the human player path in light of these proposed events?
  4. Have other, less deterministic approaches been tried, tested, and found to fail?
And my answers:
  1. In a hands-off game, I want the OE to form in a roughly historical fashion at least 80% of the time. In my opinion, capturing Thrace in a timely fashion is a necessary but not sufficient condition for that. As such, it needs to happen comfortably over 90% of the time barring human intervention. How "forceful" the events and initial conditions need to be to achieve these percentages of course remains to be seen.
  2. I have argued that there is historical justification for this. The OE did turn towards Constantinople when Mehmed took the throne, and I find it extremely unlikely that the OE would give Constantinople back to a foreign power after capturing it and moving their capital there.
  3. The distinction between the AI and human paths here is fairly small. The "big" event here is the forced secession, which both AI and humans get. The AI-only event is the one that forces them to war, and then puts them back in the unified path.
  4. Exhausting other possibilities is where I perhaps fall short. Yes, we should try writing an anti-Thrace AI. And yes, we should test how much benefit we get out of the province secession and forced war events. If people propose some alternate approaches that might work, I will withdraw the submission and we can go back to testing this.
In short, I feel that I am within the bounds of the mission statement here. When I wrote these events, the mission statement was in the front of my mind.

I maintain that forcing an ally to give Thrace up, or face the wrath of the OE, is both historically justifiable, and necessary for the high-probability progression of historical gameplay. This is the biggest problem, and I really don't see any alternate proposal that properly addresses it. The only effective alternate solution would be to eliminate Thrace's importance and allow the "city of men's desire" and "economic reforms of Mehmed" effects to fire on another city when an ally holds Thrace. In my opinion this is more of a hack and a departure from history than the methods I have propsoed.

Some additional talking points to consider (which are not necessarily applicable here, or derived directly from the mission statement):
  • How often (i.e. in what percentage of games) should we expect an event that did not occur historically to fire?
  • Could these events cause problems for players who were not aware of them (for example, if they are trying to manipulate the interaction between two AI nations)? If so, how often, and would these problems be realistic?
 
Last edited:

unmerged(17856)

General
Jun 26, 2003
2.473
0
Visit site
I don't have a problem with using province seceding events for demonstrably special cases. We use them already in the HYW sequence.

I think points 2 and 3 are 'go', but it seems, IMO, that points 1 and 4 have been undervalued. 1 hands off game is not really sufficient though to base solid conclusions upon, or to make changes in precedent - particularly changes in precedent that have been contested.

IMO, you're enduring some harsh scrutiny, doktarr, :( but it seems the issue here has struck a cord. Your own logical points, as derived form the mission statement hold you or someone else to present two or more solutions, and the response/feedback is tending to push you towards this approach aswell.
 

almoravid

I ignore U
51 Badges
Sep 8, 2003
1.271
130
Visit site
  • Age of Wonders
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II
  • For The Glory
  • Majesty 2 Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
I'm fine with everything as long as my passionate Polish-Hungarian-Venetian-Aragonian intervention can save an ai Byzantium. But Egypt or Albania should be ceding it or go to war with the turks. The OE would be quite pissed off if some Wallachians would lock themselves in Constantinople and not let the turks in. Like that event with Portugal having Granada proposed somewhere a while ago.
 

doktarr

Wet Blanket
16 Badges
Aug 3, 2003
2.071
33
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
almoravid said:
I'm fine with everything as long as my passionate Polish-Hungarian-Venetian-Aragonian intervention can save an ai Byzantium.
Well, it makes it a bit more difficult, since these events will make Constantinople fall upon capture even if the Byzantines have acquired a second province. But you can still prevent the fall by stationing an army there, blocking the straits, and preventing Constantinople from falling in the first place.

Which, once again, is what you should have to do to prevent Constantinople from falling.
almoravid said:
But Egypt or Albania should be ceding it or go to war with the turks. The OE would be quite pissed off if some Wallachians would lock themselves in Constantinople and not let the turks in. Like that event with Portugal having Granada proposed somewhere a while ago.
I agree. This is the more important, and seemingly less controversial, part of the event sequence.
 

doktarr

Wet Blanket
16 Badges
Aug 3, 2003
2.071
33
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
ribbon22 said:
I don't have a problem with using province seceding events for demonstrably special cases. We use them already in the HYW sequence.
Good point. Although it is slightly less of an issue there since we're not causing the demise of a nation via province secession.
ribbon22 said:
I think points 2 and 3 are 'go', but it seems, IMO, that points 1 and 4 have been undervalued. 1 hands off game is not really sufficient though to base solid conclusions upon, or to make changes in precedent - particularly changes in precedent that have been contested.
I agree, and I was not attempting to imply that I have any solid playtest statistics. I was simply stating that I feel a high-probability capture of Thrace in a timely fashion is necessary but not sufficient for Ottoman development.
ribbon22 said:
IMO, you're enduring some harsh scrutiny, doktarr, :( but it seems the issue here has struck a cord.
(chord) I have no problem with the level of scrutiny. We need to reach an understanding about events like this. I think I am walking the line of the mission statement reasonably well. Those who disagree should absolutely object and articulate how I am failing in this regard.
ribbon22 said:
Your own logical points, as derived form the mission statement hold you or someone else to present two or more solutions, and the response/feedback is tending to push you towards this approach aswell.
I agree, however the only alternate I have proposed involves designing an AI file that focusses exclusively on Thrace. As I have repeatedly admitted, I still don't have a firm grasp of the AI files. So, if someone writes an "antiThrace" AI, then I will write an alternate event sequence that incorporates it. Toio? IDLF? Daywalker? MKJ? Anyone?

That said, I personally am satisfied with the degree of non-determinism in the proposed sequence. As I said to Almoravid, you can still prevent Ottoman capture if you put some effort into it. You just can't dupe them any more.
 

unmerged(17856)

General
Jun 26, 2003
2.473
0
Visit site
Well, there isn't much anyone can really do.

Your anti-AI doesn't sound like the best way to handle it, given the fact that AIs are basically a vast wilderness to 99.9% of us.

Those who have objected to your proposal should propose alternative solutions or ideas. If none come forward, then this should go to HC, and it'll be up to you doktarr to raise it as an HC issue, along with giving us the appropriate threads and posts to read in order to consider as many angles as is relevent.

Like I said and will continue to say; we make exeptions to rules - the HYW event being a good example. There doesn't seem to be anything stopping HC from simply classifying the present issue as exceptional, other than adhering to a principle - a principle which rather obviously doesn't preclude exceptions...
 

doktarr

Wet Blanket
16 Badges
Aug 3, 2003
2.071
33
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
ribbon22 said:
Your anti-AI doesn't sound like the best way to handle it, given the fact that AIs are basically a vast wilderness to 99.9% of us.
I tend to agree, which is why I don't consider my solution a poor one. That said, I do consider it possible that such a solution would work to my satisfaction.
ribbon22 said:
Those who have objected to your proposal should propose alternative solutions or ideas. If none come forward, then this should go to HC, and it'll be up to you doktarr to raise it as an HC issue, along with giving us the appropriate threads and posts to read in order to consider as many angles as is relevent.
Not to be a pedantic twit, but given that I followed proper protocol in placing it in the submission thread, isn't inertia on my side here? That is, wouldn't it be up to the objectors to bring it up if they don't want it to be added?

I do think there should be some way to "flag" a submission for additional debate without bringing it up to a HC vote, but currently I don't think there is.
ribbon22 said:
Like I said and will continue to say; we make exeptions to rules - the HYW event being a good example. There doesn't seem to be anything stopping HC from simply classifying the present issue as exceptional, other than adhering to a principle - a principle which rather obviously doesn't preclude exceptions...
Yep. This situation is different than the HYW for a variety of reasons, of course.
 

Norrefeldt

Porphyrogenitus
Aug 1, 2001
7.433
0
Visit site
doktarr said:
So, the questions would be, based on that:
  1. How what the minimum acceptable likelihood for the OE to capture Thrace and form something resembling their historical empire?
  2. Does historical justification exist for these events?
  3. How divergent is the AI path from the human player path in light of these proposed events?
  4. Have other, less deterministic approaches been tried, tested, and found to fail?
And my answers:
  1. In a hands-off game, I want the OE to form in a roughly historical fashion at least 80% of the time. In my opinion, capturing Thrace in a timely fashion is a necessary but not sufficient condition for that. As such, it needs to happen comfortably over 90% of the time barring human intervention. How "forceful" the events and initial conditions need to be to achieve these percentages of course remains to be seen.
  2. I have argued that there is historical justification for this. The OE did turn towards Constantinople when Mehmed took the throne, and I find it extremely unlikely that the OE would give Constantinople back to a foreign power after capturing it and moving their capital there.
  3. The distinction between the AI and human paths here is fairly small. The "big" event here is the forced secession, which both AI and humans get. The AI-only event is the one that forces them to war, and then puts them back in the unified path.
  4. Exhausting other possibilities is where I perhaps fall short. Yes, we should try writing an anti-Thrace AI. And yes, we should test how much benefit we get out of the province secession and forced war events. If people propose some alternate approaches that might work, I will withdraw the submission and we can go back to testing this.
In short, I feel that I am within the bounds of the mission statement here. When I wrote these events, the mission statement was in the front of my mind.
1. I can agree with your figure for how often OE should take Thrace in time. The only thing I know is that they tend to do this often too. Estabishing how often OE "succeeds" with any kind of statistical accuracy will take a lot of testing. I don't have the formula for such things but as you know from election polls you need to ask a lot of people to get a 95% certainty (that's standard) for that your presented result is true. I don't mean we should be that strict, but running five hands-off might give a result thats we can say is true with 80% certainty and if so, within +/- 5%. Establishing a change from 80% outcome to a 90% outcome is even harder, since we would deal with to uncertain results. We should keep this in mind, even if we don't calculate on it.

I do think that the main reason for a weak OE is not here, but that they have a better chance if they take it. Clearing out all turkish neighbours and getting Egypt seems to be the big problems.

2. By forcing stuff we chose a historical probability over another one. Concidering all possible historical circumstances, we can say that an ally of OE would not give up Constantinople in perhaps 10% of the times it happened in the game. (The ally might be stronger than OE, or stubborn etc.) By writing events that cede Thrcae to OE if taken by a vassal we decide that this possibility doesn't matter, thus reducing the game's value IMO a bit. It is better if Thrace can be taken and kept by allies, but most people shouldn't see it happen. The same thing is true for someone snatching Constantinople, we decide that the possibility for someone recapturing after having lost it temporarily to OE is not worth our conciderations.

3.-4. I agree. As usual people are very prone to hitting hard with setting straight things that went wrong, instead of the time consuming and harder way of trying to fix the problem in a smooth way before they happen. Exceptions can be made, but we should never do them unless other, normal, routes have been tried.

doktarr said:
I maintain that forcing an ally to give Thrace up, or face the wrath of the OE, is both historically justifiable, and necessary for the high-probability progression of historical gameplay. This is the biggest problem, and I really don't see any alternate proposal that properly addresses it. The only effective alternate solution would be to eliminate Thrace's importance and allow the "city of men's desire" and "economic reforms of Mehmed" effects to fire on another city when an ally holds Thrace. In my opinion this is more of a hack and a departure from history than the methods I have propsoed.
I don't think it would be a great hack to have an event for OE establishing it's capital 1500 in Thrace. Some sort of "weak" event can be made here. It would still be a big boost compared to pre-Ottoman times. "Economic reforms of Mehmed" trigger elsewhere or later sounds worse, I don't suggest it.

doktarr said:
Could these events cause problems for players who were not aware of them (for example, if they are trying to manipulate the interaction between two AI nations)? If so, how often, and would these problems be realistic?
Yes. Many AGCEEP players dont read the event files. Some find them hard to understand, some prefer not to know.
A player assuming normal rules work here (in vanilla you never lose a province unless you lose it in a war) would probably get pissed off if he loses Constantinople just like that. I think this kind of scripting is pretty horrible, and should really be a last case, since it seems people want to use it. The other events are punishing players that use the stupid AI for getting Thrace. I think the allies events should only happen to nations much smaller than OE, introducing a size trigger. A strong nation should not cede it at once.

doktarr said:
I agree, however the only alternate I have proposed involves designing an AI file that focusses exclusively on Thrace. As I have repeatedly admitted, I still don't have a firm grasp of the AI files. So, if someone writes an "antiThrace" AI, then I will write an alternate event sequence that incorporates it. Toio? IDLF? Daywalker? MKJ? Anyone?
I don't think we can make such an AI file, since there is no way the AI can focus on a province, only a nation. We would have to make one AI file for each case: one if Thrace is owned by Karaman, one if it's owned by Venice etc.

ribbon22 said:
Like I said and will continue to say; we make exeptions to rules - the HYW event being a good example. There doesn't seem to be anything stopping HC from simply classifying the present issue as exceptional, other than adhering to a principle - a principle which rather obviously doesn't preclude exceptions...
Having too many exception can scare people away, since we move further and further away from the vanilla game. The changes in HYW (combined with Mongolia and RL) was what made IB not wanting to put down much time in the mod.

doktarr said:
Not to be a pedantic twit, but given that I followed proper protocol in placing it in the submission thread, isn't inertia on my side here? That is, wouldn't it be up to the objectors to bring it up if they don't want it to be added?
True.

doktarr said:
I do think there should be some way to "flag" a submission for additional debate without bringing it up to a HC vote, but currently I don't think there is.
I think this is needed as well. I remember we discussed it for aome other matter, where almoravid finally cut down the submission to something agreed on by all. I have the same problem with Neuro's submission for Ducal Prussia, where I have commented a week ago. Neuro hasn't been here since he submitted it, and hence that submission will not be changed. Sure I can raise a vote for it, but it would be more constructive to just keep it on hold until things are cleared out. But after all, my questions are almost old enough to be submitted as well, as a add-on to Neuros'.

I suggest that a HC member can keep things on hold for one full release, unless another HC member disagrees. In that case it's probably better to vote. Any discussion on this should go into the agenda thread, and I will repost this comment there.
 
Last edited:

doktarr

Wet Blanket
16 Badges
Aug 3, 2003
2.071
33
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
Norrefeldt said:
1. I can agree with your figure for how often OE should take Thrace in time. The only thing I know is that they tend to do this often too. Estabishing how often OE "succeeds" with any kind of statistical accuracy will take a lot of testing.
True, but based on my limited observations, the chances that it's only happening <10% of the time is pretty small. The p value here would be pretty microscopic. I've just seen Egypt or the Sheep or Venice grab Thrace too many times for it to really be working well.
Norrefeldt said:
I don't have the formula for such things but as you know from election polls you need to ask a lot of people to get a 95% certainty (that's standard) for that your presented result is true.
Let's not get too hung up on poll/election discrepancy there. (Warning: link contains spin.)
Norrefeldt said:
I don't mean we should be that strict, but running five hands-off might give a result thats we can say is true with 80% certainty and if so, within +/- 5%. Establishing a change from 80% outcome to a 90% outcome is even harder, since we would deal with to uncertain results. We should keep this in mind, even if we don't calculate on it.
I'm very (more than 90%) confident we currently do not have a 90+% probablility of capture of Thrace. It's unlikely that would be true if we currently had 80+% capture, although it's possible. But either way, I'm more than 90% sure changes are needed.
Norrefeldt said:
I do think that the main reason for a weak OE is not here, but that they have a better chance if they take it. Clearing out all turkish neighbours and getting Egypt seems to be the big problems.
I agree. My proposed Egypt events will help there. So will weakening the sheep and/or keeping them away from Egypt. So will giving Egypt a more stable starting alliance. So will causing the capture of Constantinople to lower TUR/MAM relations. So will giving the Ottomans an AI that concentrates on Anatolia and the Mamelukes for a while. I have suggested all of these things.

But really, this is apropos of nothing. We're talking about Thrace, and we both agree that it should be captured by the Ottomans in a timely fashion 90+% of the time. So the above is a separate issue.
Norrefeldt said:
2. By forcing stuff we chose a historical probability over another one. Concidering all possible historical circumstances, we can say that an ally of OE would not give up Constantinople in perhaps 10% of the times it happened in the game. (The ally might be stronger than OE, or stubborn etc.) By writing events that cede Thrcae to OE if taken by a vassal we decide that this possibility doesn't matter, thus reducing the game's value IMO a bit. It is better if Thrace can be taken and kept by allies, but most people shouldn't see it happen.
I agree that 10% chance of a Turkish ally holding Constantinople is reasonable. If we gave allys a "C" option as well (perhaps "bribe the Turks to appease their wrath"?) the probability of a choice other than "A" is pretty close to 10%.

Contrast that with the current situation, where an ally capturing Thrace leads to them holding onto it for 50+ years the majority of the time.
Norrefeldt said:
The same thing is true for someone snatching Constantinople, we decide that the possibility for someone recapturing after having lost it temporarily to OE is not worth our conciderations.
If you want to allow for "rapid recapture" during that war using flags, that's fine. Or give the AI a "b" option to continue fighting, that's OK too I guess. My problem is that I feel that in this particular case, it's far too likely for the OE to capture and hold Thrace, but settle for ducats in peace because of a spate of naval losses. This is especially a problem with human players, who can abuse the slow siege of Thrace (medium fort) to rack up warscore in Rumelia, Bulgaria, and Macedonia. This is hardly realistic.
Norrefeldt said:
3.-4. I agree. As usual people are very prone to hitting hard with setting straight things that went wrong, instead of the time consuming and harder way of trying to fix the problem in a smooth way before they happen. Exceptions can be made, but we should never do them unless other, normal, routes have been tried.
To me, "hitting hard" would me more like what was originally suggested - a straight province secession. Or what Daywalker has - forced war combined with a big bonus army for the Turks. I have justified every step I've taken on historical grounds ; your strongest objection seems to be that I haven't allowed for a 10% "out" clause at every step.

Moreover, I feel like I'm the only one proposing any real alternatives, even though I'm the one who's happy with what I wrote. Which is a bit odd, at least.
Norrefeldt said:
I don't think it would be a great hack to have an event for OE establishing it's capital 1500 in Thrace. Some sort of "weak" event can be made here. It would still be a big boost compared to pre-Ottoman times.
So a sort of weakened CoMD event that can trigger later? Sure, that would be fine. It should move the barracks, too. That said, this does not really address my concerns
Norrefeldt said:
"Economic reforms of Mehmed" trigger elsewhere or later sounds worse, I don't suggest it.
Agreed; moreover the revised CoT event takes care of much of the problem.
Norrefeldt said:
doktarr said:
Could these events cause problems for players who were not aware of them (for example, if they are trying to manipulate the interaction between two AI nations)? If so, how often, and would these problems be realistic?
Yes. Many AGCEEP players dont read the event files. Some find them hard to understand, some prefer not to know.
A player assuming normal rules work here (in vanilla you never lose a province unless you lose it in a war)
Heh. Don't play China much, do you. ;)

Oh, you wanted secession in a war, based on province controls? Note Hungary.

We also have these events all over the place in the AGCEEP, including some places where you are forced to secede a province while at peace, despite having control of it. (Formation of Holland comes to mind).

Yes, these events can surprise someone who does not read the files, in Vanilla as well as in the AGCEEP.
Norrefeldt said:
would probably get pissed off if he loses Constantinople just like that. I think this kind of scripting is pretty horrible, and should really be a last case, since it seems people want to use it.
Are you suggestiong we re-evaluate the Netherlands events, forcing every province to revolt before it is seceded?

Are you suggesting removing all the new Russian events, despite Bash's insistence that Russia fought not one single battle between capturing Kazan and capturing Astrakhan?

Would you suggest removing the Inca events that force them to secede provinces to Spain?

And so on, and so on? There are a LOT of events like this in the mod. I think that every case I mention above passes the tests of the mission statement. We wrote a mission statement for a reason. If you have a problem with these events, you should address it in the context of how the mission statement was ignored.
Norrefeldt said:
The other events are punishing players that use the stupid AI for getting Thrace. I think the allies events should only happen to nations much smaller than OE, introducing a size trigger. A strong nation should not cede it at once.
But the OE should definitley not remain their allies (at least 85+% of the time). Unfotunately we lack a breakalliance command.

If you want to change the triggers on the "case1" and "case2" events I suggested, so that large allies like AK or Egypt don't give it back, and in stead become Turkish rivals, that would be fine by me. If this is done, giving AK a more stable initial alliance (or reducing their relations with the Ottomans to the regular 125) becomes more important. As it stands, they often become Turkish allies early on.
Norrefeldt said:
I don't think we can make such an AI file, since there is no way the AI can focus on a province, only a nation. We would have to make one AI file for each case: one if Thrace is owned by Karaman, one if it's owned by Venice etc.
According to Toio's new findings, you can influence DoWs by what is in the expansion regions. So if TUR's only expansion region was an area that contained only owned provinces and Thrace, and TUR had nobody (except Byzantium) on their hitlist, and we reduced relations between TUR and the owner of Thrace, then I think this would cause the Ottomans to go after Thrace pretty regularly. But I'm not sure.
Norrefeldt said:
Having too many exception can scare people away, since we move further and further away from the vanilla game. The changes in HYW (combined with Mongolia and RL) was what made IB not wanting to put down much time in the mod.
But presumably the Dutch revolts are fine in his book ;)

I agree that Mongolia is a joke right now. The problem is that nobody wants to work on it. The haters just want it removed, and the backers want it kept for some later date when the trans-PTI links are added. I really feel like I'm the only person who's looked at the situation as it stands and tried to make it work. I've suggested more changes that help. Perhaps I should submit them.

I agree that the HYW is a bit too forced. We could probably ease off the secessions and still have it work well. It seems to me that Frace succeeds an acceptable percentage of the time, but they tend to succeed too quickly. I've never been involved in that debate. It's worth noting that most of the HYW sequence was brought in from the French forum without a ton of critique.
Norrefeldt said:
doktarr said:
I do think there should be some way to "flag" a submission for additional debate without bringing it up to a HC vote, but currently I don't think there is.
I think this is needed as well. I remember we discussed it for aome other matter, where almoravid finally cut down the submission to something agreed on by all. I have the same problem with Neuro's submission for Ducal Prussia, where I have commented a week ago. Neuro hasn't been here since he submitted it, and hence that submission will not be changed. Sure I can raise a vote for it, but it would be more constructive to just keep it on hold until things are cleared out. But after all, my questions are almost old enough to be submitted as well, as a add-on to Neuros'.

I suggest that a HC member can keep things on hold for one full release, unless another HC member disagrees. In that case it's probably better to vote. Any discussion on this should go into the agenda thread, and I will repost this comment there.
All this sounds fine by me.
 

unmerged(17856)

General
Jun 26, 2003
2.473
0
Visit site
doktarr said:
Not to be a pedantic twit, but given that I followed proper protocol in placing it in the submission thread, isn't inertia on my side here? That is, wouldn't it be up to the objectors to bring it up if they don't want it to be added?
You're the one advocating change, thus the precedence reverts to you and/or anyone who shares your view. The submission thread is not a pillar of salvation. Its design, in part, was to alert those who care, to proposed changes so that they may provide input.
submission thread said:
It will be some time (at least a week) between submission and implementation, to give time for reviews and comments.
So again, there've been at least two HC members who have had some objection to a particular in the submission. Now, granted there isn't much that explicitly states protocol regarding further discussion on un-implemented submissions once objections have been raised, but I don't think that necessarily translates into ignoring our ordinary process of discussion/debate. I think you'll agree with that. Thus precedence simply reverts to the thread of origin to sort out a solution, or some kind of consensus. Fairly simple... if pedantic...

doktarr said:
I do think there should be some way to "flag" a submission for additional debate without bringing it up to a HC vote, but currently I don't think there is.
As per above, you can see that there already is a way to flag proposals down. It relies on vigilance, which can be a -ve factor, but what else do we have to rely on?
 

unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
doktarr said:
I agree that the HYW is a bit too forced. We could probably ease off the secessions and still have it work well. It seems to me that Frace succeeds an acceptable percentage of the time, but they tend to succeed too quickly. I've never been involved in that debate. It's worth noting that most of the HYW sequence was brought in from the French forum without a ton of critique.
All this sounds fine by me.
Actually the HYW is skewed slighlty in favor of the French. I've seen them and Scotland owning most of England too often by the 16th century.

In my version I've corrected all the starting relations for western Europe and this makes this problem even more common. To deal with this I've created a set of French AIs and removed England from their hitlist after the HYW. Problem solved.
 

unmerged(17856)

General
Jun 26, 2003
2.473
0
Visit site
Norrefeldt said:
Having too many exception can scare people away, since we move further and further away from the vanilla game. The changes in HYW (combined with Mongolia and RL) was what made IB not wanting to put down much time in the mod.
On the other hand, many ppl look to this mod because it is different than the vanilla. As for IB, that is the first I've heard. Why wouldn't he vocalize his position more? When you say changes, do you mean the French forum changes exclusively? Or the changes that have been made since the French forum setup was implemented?

doktarr said:
I agree that the HYW is a bit too forced. We could probably ease off the secessions and still have it work well. It seems to me that Frace succeeds an acceptable percentage of the time, but they tend to succeed too quickly. I've never been involved in that debate. It's worth noting that most of the HYW sequence was brought in from the French forum without a ton of critique.
The latter point is certainly true. But if we'd have debated each and every change before we implemented it, we wouldn't have the better setup upon which we could move forward.

The HYW needs to be deterministic to an extent. That's all I care to say about this topic though in a thread not devoted to it. I'd be more than happy to elaborate in the HYW or British Isles and France thread, believe me.

Norrefeldt said:
I think this is needed as well. I remember we discussed it for aome other matter, where almoravid finally cut down the submission to something agreed on by all. I have the same problem with Neuro's submission for Ducal Prussia, where I have commented a week ago. Neuro hasn't been here since he submitted it, and hence that submission will not be changed. Sure I can raise a vote for it, but it would be more constructive to just keep it on hold until things are cleared out. But after all, my questions are almost old enough to be submitted as well, as a add-on to Neuros'.
actually, I'd say that you're free to modify Neuro's work at will if he doesn't show up. Your objection is as valid as the next, and if a modified version of the original submission can be agreed upon, then there should be no issue whatsoever.

Norrefeldt said:
I suggest that a HC member can keep things on hold for one full release, unless another HC member disagrees. In that case it's probably better to vote. Any discussion on this should go into the agenda thread, and I will repost this comment there.
While I'm attracted to this idea, I fear this grants the HC prerogatives it doesn't necessarily require.

IMO the present system, as I understand it, works well. However, as I noted in my last post, there is no explicit statement describing protocol when an individual(s) objects to a submission(s). There is a statement that explicitly states a given submission will not be implemented for at least one week in order to receive reviews, comments or criticism if need be. Like I said before, the ordinary rules of the forum shouldn't be discarded when it comes to a submission. Anyone who objects to a submission should raise the issue in the appropriate thread of origin, where the ordinary processes of debate, discussion and concensus should ensue, with the result being either a revised submission, the same submission, or an HC vote.

It's obviously confusing to some though, as there's no real statement outlining this latter process...so perhaps, if we agree, Norrefeldt can modify the first post of the submission thread.

doktarr said:
Would you suggest removing the Inca events that force them to secede provinces to Spain?

And so on, and so on? There are a LOT of events like this in the mod. I think that every case I mention above passes the tests of the mission statement. We wrote a mission statement for a reason. If you have a problem with these events, you should address it in the context of how the mission statement was ignored
These are all good points. At the same time though, we don't want to discourage ppl from vocalizing their objections.
 

Toio

Field Marshal
6 Badges
Jun 18, 2003
7.699
0
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
doktarr said:
According to Toio's new findings, you can influence DoWs by what is in the expansion regions. So if TUR's only expansion region was an area that contained only owned provinces and Thrace, and TUR had nobody (except Byzantium) on their hitlist, and we reduced relations between TUR and the owner of Thrace, then I think this would cause the Ottomans to go after Thrace pretty regularly. But I'm not sure.

Try this for yourselves, its the first file ie bpai_tur_time1435
only make changes as below

# preferred areas for expansion

region = { EMedSea }
area = { Balkans }

#Which countries to conquer if possible. (to guide nation historically)
combat = { BYZ CAN ATH SER TRE }


I need someone else to test these as I need some other advice.

This file basically sends OE troops to fight in the Balkans which contain these:
Balkans (361 Albania, 364 Bosnia, 356 Bulgaria, 366 Croatia, 365 Dalmatia, 359 Hellas, 363 Kosovo, 367 Krain, 358 Macedonia, 360 Morea, 362 Ragusa, 321 Rumelia, 355 Serbia, 357 Thrace, 322 Wallachia)

The OE will place extra concentration on the combat list.

Note: You might have problems with ATH due to the VEN alliance with it.

On Thrace being captured by anyone except OE, I have seen only venice x2, Albania x1, egypt x 3 and Karaman x8 (total games approx 50)
Karaman is the problem one and the rest usually loose thrace to either rebels or the OE. Suggestion, maybe make Karaman a one province nation.


Any way here is the next tur file if you are interesed in testing.

bpai_tur_time1460
# preferred areas for expansion

region = { EMedSea }
area = { Anatolia Balkans }

#Which countries to conquer if possible. (to guide nation historically)
combat = { ALB BYZ CAN ATH KAR SER KNI WAL }



Note: No other numbers have been changed from the files.
 

doktarr

Wet Blanket
16 Badges
Aug 3, 2003
2.071
33
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
Toio said:
Try this for yourselves, its the first file ie bpai_tur_time1435
only make changes as below

# preferred areas for expansion

region = { EMedSea }
area = { Balkans }

#Which countries to conquer if possible. (to guide nation historically)
combat = { BYZ CAN ATH SER TRE }


I need someone else to test these as I need some other advice.

This file basically sends OE troops to fight in the Balkans which contain these:
Balkans (361 Albania, 364 Bosnia, 356 Bulgaria, 366 Croatia, 365 Dalmatia, 359 Hellas, 363 Kosovo, 367 Krain, 358 Macedonia, 360 Morea, 362 Ragusa, 321 Rumelia, 355 Serbia, 357 Thrace, 322 Wallachia)
Another idea would be to manipulate some of the regions, so that Thrace is contained in a much smaller region.
Toio said:
The OE will place extra concentration on the combat list.
I would suggest adding SPR (Morea) to that list. Seperate issue. SPR doesn't exist in BPAI.
Toio said:
On Thrace being captured by anyone except OE, I have seen only venice x2, Albania x1, egypt x 3 and Karaman x8 (total games approx 50)
That's odd. You've never seen Ak Koynulu capture it? I've seen them end up allied to TUR early on a few times.
Toio said:
Karaman is the problem one and the rest usually loose thrace to either rebels or the OE.
Rebels is an inconsistent thing. By the time Thrace rebels away from Egypt, you're usually passed the date of CoMD.

That said, if your results are true, then maybe only the first half of my event sequence is needed. Now, if only there were a breakalliance command...
 

Norrefeldt

Porphyrogenitus
Aug 1, 2001
7.433
0
Visit site
doktarr said:
Are you suggestiong we re-evaluate the Netherlands events, forcing every province to revolt before it is seceded?

Are you suggesting removing all the new Russian events, despite Bash's insistence that Russia fought not one single battle between capturing Kazan and capturing Astrakhan?

Would you suggest removing the Inca events that force them to secede provinces to Spain?

And so on, and so on? There are a LOT of events like this in the mod. I think that every case I mention above passes the tests of the mission statement. We wrote a mission statement for a reason. If you have a problem with these events, you should address it in the context of how the mission statement was ignored.
No. All these things cover historical events and are there to do something that historically happened. I wouldn't like to add more events after the end of the Dutch revolts have ended, or make anyone holding Inca provinces cede them, which would be similar to this case. People might get surprised by our historical ceding events, but then these things happened in history so I think we have good backup. I think we can use much more forcing scripting to make histircal things happen, if they cannot be represented otherwise. Automatic ceding in ahistorical cases, like what IDLF suggested for POR-SPA, isn't a good idea IMO.
I don't understand that the mission statement sets a clear yes or no for this kind of events. It wasn't written with that kind of hard set rules, and would probably never have been finished had we aimed for that.

If you want to change the triggers on the "case1" and "case2" events I suggested, so that large allies like AK or Egypt don't give it back, and in stead become Turkish rivals, that would be fine by me. If this is done, giving AK a more stable initial alliance (or reducing their relations with the Ottomans to the regular 125) becomes more important. As it stands, they often become Turkish allies early on.
AKK-TUR alliance is a separate problem, and should be addressed separately.

ribbon22 said:
IMO the present system, as I understand it, works well. However, as I noted in my last post, there is no explicit statement describing protocol when an individual(s) objects to a submission(s). There is a statement that explicitly states a given submission will not be implemented for at least one week in order to receive reviews, comments or criticism if need be. Like I said before, the ordinary rules of the forum shouldn't be discarded when it comes to a submission. Anyone who objects to a submission should raise the issue in the appropriate thread of origin, where the ordinary processes of debate, discussion and concensus should ensue, with the result being either a revised submission, the same submission, or an HC vote.

It's obviously confusing to some though, as there's no real statement outlining this latter process...so perhaps, if we agree, Norrefeldt can modify the first post of the submission thread.
I think someone should explicitly ask for a HC vote to take a submission to HC vote. Sometimes a HC member can object to certain things, and get persuaded the current submission is fine as it is, or realise there isn't enough support to vote it done anyway, or that the objection wasn't important enough to take it to a vote. In all those cases it would be unnecessary to have called a vote and having HC members to ask for it explicitly would also keep the number of votes to a minimum.

Toio said:
Try this for yourselves, its the first file ie bpai_tur_time1435
only make changes as below
...
Sure, it cannot hurt to add these areas and see if it makes a change. SPR should be added too.


Will it work to have an ally of TUR DOW them as in your events? Not sure what exceptions there are to the war command, but there are some? The second event, the AI_EVENT, will it not trigger for BYZ and making a CTD when they cede their capital?

As a compromise, I can agree to an event having TUR allies, if not to large, give Constantinople to TUR. But not the other events. I also think we should get OE take it in the first place more often, by raising enemy to perhaps 10 in their AI file. Having all nations holding Constantinople declaring war or ceding it to OE is taking historical plausibility very very far. Letting OE get them automatically when the province is taken in war would be to set aside the peace rules for a ahistorical thing, so I don't like that event either. :(
 

Toio

Field Marshal
6 Badges
Jun 18, 2003
7.699
0
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
doktarr said:
Another idea would be to manipulate some of the regions, so that Thrace is contained in a much smaller region.
I would suggest adding SPR (Morea) to that list. Seperate issue. SPR doesn't exist in BPAI.
That's odd. You've never seen Ak Koynulu capture it? I've seen them end up allied to TUR early on a few times.
Rebels is an inconsistent thing. By the time Thrace rebels away from Egypt, you're usually passed the date of CoMD.

That said, if your results are true, then maybe only the first half of my event sequence is needed. Now, if only there were a breakalliance command...

Maybe -200 relations might force a break of alliance. But I agree we do need a breakalliance command.

will amend file for SPR (thanks, I forgot).

Ak koynulu, No never seen it, Have seen many games where once the initial alliance the OE has (ALb, wal etc) is broken they (OE) usually align with Karaman or Egypt and lately Candar.
AK K ... is usually destroyed.
Latest game I have is (1480) OE has all of the balkans except Dalmatia , has a few crimean provinces , all lands south until Judae and all west till the bottomof the Caspian sea. (I think its Irak)

Difficult start for OE in that BRZ had Ghazi and Konya by 1430, the OE did take out the last BRZ province (thrace) on time though ie 1451.