Hopfully I'm not opening a can of worms here, but IMHO we need to agree on some basic guidelines.
-
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.
EEP started with a thread on EEP philosophy but we never came to any firm conclusions. Eventually I think this should be decided by the Committee, since it is proved to be impossible to reach consensus here. But they need a general discussion of course. I'll try to sum it up here later...
AI behaviour
When independence events has been discussed, quite a few object to those because of the straithjacket behaviour. IMHO this could be solved by having them ai-only. Then others object because they would like to have the same "rules" for the ai and human.
I have a different opinion...
I would like the ai to behive as close to history as possible, and then the human player can tweak and twist.
This is why I can pose as both a history buff and an pro alternative history events buff, sutch as the Italian Unification.
IMHO the ai should therefor be guided towards history, but a human player should be alowed freedom.
When independence events has been discussed, quite a few object to those because of the straithjacket behaviour. IMHO this could be solved by having them ai-only. Then others object because they would like to have the same "rules" for the ai and human.
I have a different opinion...
I would like the ai to behive as close to history as possible, and then the human player can tweak and twist.
This is why I can pose as both a history buff and an pro alternative history events buff, sutch as the Italian Unification.
IMHO the ai should therefor be guided towards history, but a human player should be alowed freedom.
I think both are correct - it is a can of worms, and we do need to agree.
Personally I don't think the ai should be locked in a straitjacket, and I dislike forced secession events unless they are absolutely necessary. I'd have the HRE independece events (for instance) as an option, but as one that both human and ai must face.
Re: AI behaviour
And there is a difference between guiding and forcing.
I think too though, that without human meddling, the ai should be directed to act as historically as possible.
And there is a difference between guiding and forcing.
I think too though, that without human meddling, the ai should be directed to act as historically as possible.
philosphy was also discussed during previous discussions about merging.link
currently Daywalker's mod is working quite well and if making AI behave as closely to history as possible is what we want, we could perhaps borrow things from his mod. but that would probably be after merger is complete...
currently Daywalker's mod is working quite well and if making AI behave as closely to history as possible is what we want, we could perhaps borrow things from his mod. but that would probably be after merger is complete...
I think both the ai and the player need to have a choice with every event, except for bookkeeping ones. As a player I really dislike being told 'suck it up' with regards to an event, as this just says 'no matter what you do your efforts are for naught'. A prime example of this is the Paradox version Spanish bankruptcies; no matter what I do there's only one outcome, which makes the game event-driven rather than player-driven.
As for the ai having choices, the reason I favor this is simply for variety. I realize that many other folks like things to turn out pretty much the same way that they did historically, except for what they mess with themselves, but I find this sort of thing incredible dull. I like the variation, the surprise, the unpredictability. Relegating ahistorical choices to option 'b' seems good enough, in my mind.
Anyway, the real problem seems to be with battle-happy ai's going on conquest sprees. This is partly due to CB shield wackiness, partly due to ai file direction, and partly due to warmongering ratings. Removing CB shields until certain dates, making more peaceful ai files that can be swapped out for certain periods or when certain things happen, and massive reductions in warmongering could go a long way to fixing this.
In other words, I don't think the events are the cause of the problem, but rather how the ai players are prodded into violence because of how they're set up.
Max
As for the ai having choices, the reason I favor this is simply for variety. I realize that many other folks like things to turn out pretty much the same way that they did historically, except for what they mess with themselves, but I find this sort of thing incredible dull. I like the variation, the surprise, the unpredictability. Relegating ahistorical choices to option 'b' seems good enough, in my mind.
Anyway, the real problem seems to be with battle-happy ai's going on conquest sprees. This is partly due to CB shield wackiness, partly due to ai file direction, and partly due to warmongering ratings. Removing CB shields until certain dates, making more peaceful ai files that can be swapped out for certain periods or when certain things happen, and massive reductions in warmongering could go a long way to fixing this.
In other words, I don't think the events are the cause of the problem, but rather how the ai players are prodded into violence because of how they're set up.
Max
I guess I have a much different philosophy here. I want the AI to play the smartest game possible. If Brazil is more profitable than Africa for Portugal, then let Africa be damned until every ToT province in SA is a colonial city. Let the Ottomans expand where the opposition is weakest and the lands are richest. I was quite pleased to find AI Ottomans having all but four Italian provinces by 1490 with Daywalker's mod. Poland was strong, allied with Hungary, and the path of least resistance was a fractured peninsula.
Were Paradox able to overcome the translation issues regarding new events, these mods would be unnecessary.
Were Paradox able to overcome the translation issues regarding new events, these mods would be unnecessary.
In general i agree, but i dunno as to every non-bookkeeping event needs to have 2 choices...
I'll take your example...Imo it would be better if the triggers were reworked better than just owning those certain provinces, but you shouldn't be able to have a choice to not declare banruptsy if your nation is really should be......
And there may be something like hyperinflation or plauge events.....or are those what you call bookkeeping?
As for the ai problems i think you have a pont that shouldn't be overlooked, but events, espially random events, certainly can have an impact.
Yeah, there's a second choice in that Disintegration of Timurid Empire event and it doesn't make sense at all. There shouldn't be any control over this disintegration as the events that lead up to it, happened before the game starts.
My opinion was always that for one reason or another, the historical choice should always be the one that makes the most sense for you. The really bad options should be possible to avoid, however if you allow the conditions that lead up to such an outcome to happen you should face the consequences.
Such as, as the Mamelukes there should be no event forcing you to give up everything to the Ottomans at a certain date, but if they seize your Syrian posessions and take Cairo it should be curtains for you, and the only way out is to give up a lot in concessions.
I really don't like it when the historical choice is the MOST idiotic choice available... there was always a reason such a decision was made.
Such as, as the Mamelukes there should be no event forcing you to give up everything to the Ottomans at a certain date, but if they seize your Syrian posessions and take Cairo it should be curtains for you, and the only way out is to give up a lot in concessions.
I really don't like it when the historical choice is the MOST idiotic choice available... there was always a reason such a decision was made.
That's assuming you made the same mistakes as your historic counterparts. The Paradox Spanish bankruptcy events, for example, are solely deterministic and completely unavoidable. As a player I say "wtf?" because all this tells me is that ultimately, my actions count for squat; the game becomes event-driven rather than player-driven.
Other events slap you upside the head even though the path you've taken makes their appearance nonsensical. "The Fall of the City of Victory" is a good example of this, as well as many, many chinese events.
Actually, in my own game I removed the nation-specific plague events and incorporated the new random plague events. With the governor changes I don't think you'd need hyperinflation events, because this is probably going to happen to you anyway now. Unless you want hyper-hyper inflation.
They surely can. No argument with that one.
Max
??? There's a series of events like this out there? I made my own to reflect the outcome of the 1517 campaign. This is the first in the series:
## Turkish Conquest of the Mameluks ##
event = {
id = 25800
trigger = {
control = { province = 454 data = TUR }
control = { province = 485 data = TUR }
control = { province = 490 data = TUR }
control = { province = 491 data = TUR }
control = { province = 493 data = TUR }
control = { province = 494 data = TUR }
control = { province = 746 data = TUR }
war = { country = MAM country = TUR }
random = no
country = MAM
style = 1
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1450 }
offset = 30
deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1820 }
name = "Turkish Conquest of the Mameluks"
desc = "In 1517 the Turks made a lightning conquest of Mameluk territories, capturing the Mameluk king in the process. The Turks gave the king the choice to become a vassal of a much reduced territory, or to be executed. He chose to be executed, and the Ottoman Empire expanded to incorporate all of the former Mameluk territories."
action_a ={ #I choose death#
name = "I choose death (Game Over)"
command = { type = trigger which = 25801 } # Inherited by the Ottoman Empire
}
action_b ={ #I choose vassalage#
name = "I choose vassalage"
command = { type = trigger which = 25802 } # Vassals to the Ottoman Empire.
}
}
In 25801, the Ottomans inherit the Mameluks. In 25802 the Ottomans get the provinces listed above except Egypt, and the Mameluks become a vassal. But option 'b' is 'rescind the offer of vassalage', so the player has a choice, in which case the war continues as normal.
It's an example of choice. If no choice is given in 25802, the player is forced to take the offer and end the war, even if this wouldn't make a whole lot of sense (e.g., he captured the territories in a previous war).
The Mamelukes also have a choice, although the outcome of vassalage is rather harsh. But hey, if you allowed the Ottomans to take half your empire....
Max
Thats all well in good, except for when the conditions never arise and do not arise consistently. Thats when events need to step in to correct the situation. It'd be nice if we could do that with the Mams but the poor Ottos have too much work cut out for them for that to happen currently.
I think in cases were the historical choice is the MOST idiotic perhaps it should be the only choice?
I suppose this is what I mean... In an ideal world, the Ottos should be molded into enough of a powerhouse to force the Mamelukes annexation by its own means.
Yes i am reworking both of them.
Although some events, like moving the capitals in china and timurids should be out of the players control.
In timurid case (should start in herat), when Shah Ruhk died power went back to Samarkand where it was originally.
In china's case, all the preparations were done before EU2 time period...all that was left was the formality basically.
no, but since humans can manage inflation well i'd suggest ai=no as a trigger condidition for random hyper inflation events. Hyper-inflation happened to almost every colonizer (and many non colonizers) and was beyond the realm of control at the time to monarchs (although some were better able to handle it than others).
And no stupid scheme like good first option and bad the second. The were prons and cons of every decision.
Agree if this is what you mean:
The Ottomans (and other "problematic" nations such as Russia, the Timurids/Mughals or Persia), no matter if AI or human, are encouraged to behave historically and strengthened by realistic, historical event effects. History is however not forced upon them and events ONLY do those things that cannot be done the way the happened in the game engine - e.g. Russia inherits Sibir at the historical date since the conquest was not done by the Czar - which he would have to in the game -, but by independent merchants who afterwards placed it under Russian sovereignity or the Ottomans inherit the Mameluks when they have militarily crushed them because they were historically taken out in a war, after only two decisive battles - which is not possible in EU2 due to the one-province annexation rule and because the Mameluks' provinces are too valuable to be demanded in one war, so that the Ottomans usually need three wars to annex the Mameluks.
I dont disagree, but IMHO the AI should ALWAYS be forced to choose history. Or perhaps be forced to move TOWARDS history.
Those restrictions I would not add to a human player.
But I know I'm a minority in this view, and I will not push it...