2 fundamental historic flaws in EU

[Guest]

Originally posted by ser_barr
My opinion would be the following:

Nobody has penalties, everybody has the same right to research. however, if one country is ahead, a feature could be placed that other countries get similar technologies within a time frame (as a result of spionage, copying tactics, picking weapons frokm the field, etc.). historically, when a nation had a successful military model, it was usually copied by the other nations.

I fear problem is more complex:

1) human player is much more able in research than AI
so he has to be slowed
2) a minor muslim nation will raise faster in tech than a latin major... so without penalties, you will have Algiers blockading spanish ports in 1650 because spain fleet will be fully outperformed.

here's the real problem: the penalty was made to fix this. unfortunatly, the real point being the AI problem in research, majors are always as slow and even slower since minors of the same grroup give a less large neighbour bonus...
SO i had to fully change tech group identity in real EU 4.1 and change the tech costs file to get historical results. At least, it seems to work.

 

[unmerged(1641)]

To laurent Favre,
I had this post on another place but no answers from anyone so I ask u direct instead when I know that u have worked a little with them (I'm using the new AI's u had made, works good).

Had also hoped that Paradox should give us a hint about it so we use them correct. If they want new intressting usermade scenarios (historical and "fiction"), one of the most important things is to tell us this.

Can't realy understand why to hold on it an many other thing's and values in the .cvs files, if they had made it easier for us on that they should get a lot of "feed back" on all testing's we are doing.
It's not important for the Copyright if we know what all values stand for in thoose files (we can't change or "steal" the game engine, lol).

-------------------

I should be very gratefully if somebody could give me a hint on this and it will also save me a lot of testings.

Some examples (from England AI):

1. # preferred areas for expansion :
2. continent = { Oceania }
3. region = { "North America" Carribean India }
4. area = { America Maine Georgia Newfoundland }

Can this be used for where the AI should have in focus for not only colonization but for "war expansion" to ?

I have tested a little but I'm not sure how it work's. Example : I gave Poland an focus on "East Europe" (region)and they annexed Hungary (diplomatic) in ca 1570ths, don't know if that had happen anyway but I haven't seen it before.

The reason why I ask is that that a lot of minor countries needs an more specific AI the the default one in my opinion.

Denmark for example : Should direct upgrade Finnmark and Narvik to city's and fortified them as soon they start's to get settler's. And they should also concentrate more on Scandinavian provinces (Sweden) and the Baltic states instead of trying to conquer Spain or France (just a joke).
And how to get Russia to upgrade Kola and Far Karelia as fast as possible ?

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by First Surprise
Just some more testsetting's for the fun...

I started an "Inflation test" to see what happen if I removed the random deflation event (-33%) and replaced it with this 3 good one's instead.

80;10;Discovery of Mineral Resources
81;20;Gift to the State
82;48;Treachery

All I can say is that's more fun to play this way and when the AI "cheat's" (I like that "cheat", improves the playability) then it's no problem for the AI.

I'm no in 1601 playing Sweden with an inflation on 8% and have used all Governors' (had 22% before them), will be fun to see how I can handle this the next century.

This is combinated with other setting's on the economy (work's like laurent Favre's Real EU, but I have used other solution's to solve the "timeline" problem).

One thing I'm testing with is to have the same "base" good's value on everything (testing 10 as base value)and the "real" value only depend's how much is produced and "wanted".
This gives a result of :
1. Little more money in the beginning and no "explosion" in cashflow later in the scenario (the price is still high on Oriental (ca.25D) good's and very low on Grain (ca.2,5D)for example).
2. Gives large major countries (many "low value goods" provinces)an little bonus.
3. An little more "stabile" tech advance comparing to the timeline and I think that it will be hard to "rush" away as human vs AI later in the game (will soon see).

I will be back as soon I know better how it work's in detail and with more specific setting's when I got everything balanced as "perfect" it can be.

If anyone have any suggestion's on setting's to try or question's about this (hard to discuss and find thing's on the right place in this forum) just Email me (Swedish or English).

hasseolsson5@hotmail.com

Thinking about your solution, I prefer at second thought to increase number of merchants for small nations. It should give more difficulties to get monopolies which is yet a bit to easy for an human player.

I will try that for real EU 5.0

 

[unmerged(1641)]

Thinking about your solution, I prefer at second thought to increase number of merchants for small nations. It should give more difficulties to get monopolies which is yet a bit to easy for an human player.

I will try that for real EU 5.0
______________________

K, It looked as it workes ok with no random "deflation event's" challeging to handle but not to hard, np for an experienced player.
Not sure yet about "same value" for good's, as it looked until early 1700 then it was ok (but this is only an test to see if it will balance the totally trading incomes vs the rest later in the scenario).
The AI can handle it very good, maybe better then I do..hehe

More merchant's for small nations sound's like an very good idea to test (I always use automatic "sending" to give the AI an handicap as it works now). And I realy like the colonists.csv u have made, will always use that one in the future. So it will be very intressting to test an modified traders.cvs to, hope it will force me to use manual sending.

I will start a new test now with adjusted tech setting's and some other things(Ex. an special AI for Denmark). Was no meaning to continue with the old one, was to tough setting's comparing to the lower income values later in the scenario I use and with pretty high inflation, but It was very intressting to play anyway.

 

[egross]

Originally posted by robo
Pirates avoided warships I'd say 99% of the time. Not much booty aboard them. Someone mentioned that it might be possible to edit out the Pirates from the game.

Well, it wasn't just booty. In fact, a lot of pirate captains would have loved to get their hands on a real warship. Mostly, however, they avoided warships because warships because pirate/warship encounters tended to very Hobbsian -- nasty, brutish and short -- with the warship usually coming away the victor. Pirates greatly preferred to intimidate rather than battle their victims into surrender, and liked to pick the victims who couldn't fight back. Most pirates were not crack combat crews, and most pirate ships small, converted merchantmen. Not a recipe for naval supremacy.

I like the pirates; leave them in. They were a historic problem. However, I do think that need to start noticeably decreasing in numbers after 1700; the Golden Age of piracy was well over by then.

In fact, this has inspired me to start a new thread --