-
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.
Would prefer for the historical “unsuccessful” Sejms (which are quite many as I pointed). But we can make them random to make the things simpler (in order not to write 48 events).zdlugasz said:
Well, from the political point of view his reign was not brilliant. He ruled surrounded by the French and Austrian parties opposition (and none of his great plans ever come true). He managed to save the balance for the years of his reign, but it was too weak and the Brzostowski-Sapieha related events in Lithuania proved it immediately after his death.zdlugasz said:
IMO there should be more events to represent the troubles after 1650s, especially ones related with political issues (inefficiency of the government, Sejm, weak monarchs – Wiśniowiecki, Wettins etc).zdlugasz said:
I think they should be triggered by Liberum veto event. But we can have DP triggers too.
My history teacher always wined that he did not ally himself with France and Turkey... Wonder if such political AUS vs FRA competition would be a good idea for events.Herr Doctor said:
I guess most of them should be economic rather than political as such. After all the Wettins were but a gigantic drain on a Polish budget... and the person of Count Bruehl is a pretty decent example of what was happening back then.
Cheers
Herr Doctor said:Not as of yet. Have you submitted the Polish ones already?
They are in 1.50
In fact Jan III Sobieski did ally with France and Sweden in 1675. Sobeski family traditionally was very much French-oriented, and Jan during the first years of his reign also tried to support very good relations with the court of Louis XIV (naturally he was also very strongly influenced by his beloved French wife Queen Maria Kazimiera, famous “Marysieńka”).Halibutt said:
It was during the war of Dutch-Spanish-Austrian-Brandenburgian-Danish collation against France (Dutch war) and Sweden (Skanian war), when Louis XIV offered Poland-Lithuania an alliance. The treaty was signed 11 June 1675 in Jaworowo (in Ruthenia). The alliance was secret and the King of Poland obligated himself to enter the war against Brandenburg as soon as the military campaign against the Turks would be finished. Louis XIV promises the annual 200.000 talars subsidies for the time of the possible military actions against the “Große Kurfürst”. In addition the twice more sum was promised if Sobieksi would also attack Austria. The army was supposed to be recruited for the personal King’s expenditures (and not as Polish-Lithuanian state forces). The Polish King wished to annex the Ducal Prussia and to make it his son’s personal possession (same he later wished for Moldavia after Vienna during the Turkish war).
After the treaty of Żurawno (armistice with the Turks) the Polish forces were moved to the Prussian borders. In addition 4 August 1677 in Danzig Jan III signed a secret pact with the Swedes. Additionally to the alliance the last were supposed to be granted right of passage to attack Brandenburgian Pomerania. But in 1678 the situation changed rapidly: the Swedes were not ready for the campaign in Prussia and Pomerania because of the Danish war; the secret separate negotiation between France and Brandenburg started and were close to be finished, converting Friedrich Wilhelm from the French enemy to its secret ally; the Turks seemed to be preparing new attack (and none was still sure if these armies were supposed to attack Poland or Austria)… So, these treaties just lost all sense.
So, IMO it could be a good idea to add the events with increasing-decreasing relations with France-Sweden and Austria-Brandenburg options.
As I pointed already IMO they could be politically related, but have economical effects (monetary and soldiers drops).Halibutt said:
Herr Doctor said:Then I will submit Lithuanian ones.
i have some question regarding deluge events
does decrease of population represents real drop of the population?
i ask becouse i read in submission forum thread about events for england
#The Great Plague#
description says that around 20000 people should die, event decreases population by -8000
#The Great Fire of London#
description says about 16000 dead, event decreases population by -3000
in thread "british isles and france" one can read (by bordic):
"A few months ago I have posted a similar event for Venice, the plague of 1575 which struck nearly 1/3 of population, about 50,000 over 175,000 inhabitants, but for game's sake (can you say it?) as I was suggested, I coded only 5,000 dead."
if one apllies similar way of population drops due to deluge i guess population drops should be lower? is there any agreement about how many % of population in eu2 should be reduced comparing to real population drop?
im just curious, becouse i dont want to see double standards, the same rules should apply to all countries
The question is if you refer to province or to capital city of the struck province. In my events plague was referred to Venice and not to Veneto where cities like Verona, Padua, Vicenza, Treviso, Rovigo... lie. That was the standard adopted. AS you can see the event about the sack of Rome reduces the population of 50,000 as to represent the fall of the city and of Papal States, even if the real figure was 30,000 iirc and referred to Rome only.rybka said:
It represents a historical percentage (both me and zdlugasz provided a lot of sources), not numbers. So this is much more realistic than the numbers you mentioned.rybka said:
Lithuania lost about 1.500.000 people in this war, so as you understand with the present population data it is only counted accordingly to historical percentage per historical voivodships (I believe I already explained the formula used for this).
Bordic said:
in 1575 venice is at least 100 000 in eu2, and a huge plague, which killed in the province 1/3 of population in the city itself killed only 3000 people? now, im not expert in plagues, but from what i know if plague started in the city, percentage of the dead in the cities was bigger than in the countryside due to easier contacts between people
rybka said:
As far as I understand any number about population used in EU2 those numbers are only a small percentage of the realworld numbers. In another thread some are discussing population of Portugal and Spain and found that the population numbers in the game represent roughly 10% of the realworld population at a given time. So "3000" dead from plague in the game would then be roughly "30000" dead historically.
My event scripting skills got a tad rusty lately, but perhaps I could give it a try in my free time. Or do you want to take it?Herr Doctor said:
Cheers
I am presently preoccupied with Lithuanian stuff and elections events, so if you would have time for those Jan III’s events that would be really perfect.Halibutt said:
Herr Doctor said:
IMO 48 is too much. One every 5-10 years would be OK.
Otherwise AI would be unable to achieve -1 stability (or maybe even -2).
Regarding Sobieski: yes, he did avoid reforming and before he became king he was in deep (and not constructive) opposition. But we have to consider overall balance as well.
And not all broken sejms did contribute to "extra bad stuff". Most of them (IMO) were just continuation of previous politics - no change, blockade of any reform attempts. IMO they represent kind of stagnation and considering your argumentation regarding Liberum Veto, they actually could get positive stab = we are happy that our "freedom" is sustained.
Some Sejms (like Silent Sejm) were milestones, most did not contribute in any way.
And we have to consider already existing events related to the elections/Great Nothern Conflict/ Silent Sejm, come back of August the Stong etc.
Hmmm, I was wondering how could we represent that. Do you know if there's any way we could block the player from simply moving the ledgers for a longer period? Say, the szlachta are happy with Aristocracy pushed to the limit, and the player cannot change that for some time... Any ideas?zdlugasz said:
Cheers
I have checked 1.50 for how some of the POL DP settings change if options A are taken all the time, to simulate a reasonably likely AI path.
I have noted overflow (+/-) for each period, but not carried it over to the next period, as it becomes irrelevant if the policy starts going the other way.
Other things that I noted, all from vanilla.
A few of the events: "Ending the stagnation" in the 18th century are really unbalanced between A and B. If the historical trend is stagnation, the player then gets to chose with going straight against that trend, and for a much lower price in stab than they would have to pay if the trend was more neutral (12 DP shifts for 4 stab!). Poland also got a lot of boosting events "The Sejm veto all your policies" that gives free stab five times in the 17th century. The text give the indication this was something bad for Poland, while the price payed for one or two stab (10 manpower) couldn't be lower!
So, unless I have missed something, which is so likely that I will check my figures later, I don't see the reason of a too strong Poland in the DP settings, even if it's probably the most innovative country in the world! If Yodamaster saw some DP settings maxed 1819 it can be the fluke (if seen once) that the AI takes a B in some "Ending the stagnation" which completely alters the scene.
EDIT:
I controlled INNOVATIVE, and found one I had missed. For owning each of Pommerania, Kustrin and Silesia anytime after 1571 one get +1 each. I have assumed +2 here.
Code:
country tech Arist Cent Inno Off Qual
POL latin 6 2 5 8 5
1500 7
1600 orth 10 0- 9 9 3
1650 9 0 10++ 8 4
1700 10++ 0-- 7
1750 10+ 2 10++
1800 2 9Other things that I noted, all from vanilla.
A few of the events: "Ending the stagnation" in the 18th century are really unbalanced between A and B. If the historical trend is stagnation, the player then gets to chose with going straight against that trend, and for a much lower price in stab than they would have to pay if the trend was more neutral (12 DP shifts for 4 stab!). Poland also got a lot of boosting events "The Sejm veto all your policies" that gives free stab five times in the 17th century. The text give the indication this was something bad for Poland, while the price payed for one or two stab (10 manpower) couldn't be lower!
So, unless I have missed something, which is so likely that I will check my figures later, I don't see the reason of a too strong Poland in the DP settings, even if it's probably the most innovative country in the world! If Yodamaster saw some DP settings maxed 1819 it can be the fluke (if seen once) that the AI takes a B in some "Ending the stagnation" which completely alters the scene.
EDIT:
I controlled INNOVATIVE, and found one I had missed. For owning each of Pommerania, Kustrin and Silesia anytime after 1571 one get +1 each. I have assumed +2 here.
Last edited:
Yes very innovative, probably more than England going industrial...
Is that going offensive the reason why Poland tend to acquire territories?
What about serfdom? I think it should be 10, no?
Is that going offensive the reason why Poland tend to acquire territories?
What about serfdom? I think it should be 10, no?
Bordic said:Yes very innovative, probably more than England going industrial...
Is that going offensive the reason why Poland tend to acquire territories?
What about serfdom? I think it should be 10, no?
innavative is really strange, since in 1690-1740 it was completely other way!
innavative shuld increase until 1550ies, than decrease until half of 18 century! than again increase