AGC/EEP Poland-Lithuania thread

rybka · Oct 26, 2006

Norrefeldt said:
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.

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!

"Ending the stagnation" - since half 18 cent, the trend was to end stagnation
the Sejm veto all your policies - it could only decrese manpower without stability increse, well one can leave stab increase once or twice, addicionally some dessertion could be added

Norrefeldt · Oct 26, 2006

I controlled INNOVATIVE, and corrected some. Corrected list and a suggestion, by no means a final one:

Code:

country	Inno	New?
1419	5	5
		
1500		
1550		6
1600	9	5
1650	10++	4
1700		
1750	10++	3
1800		6

Some reasoning: even a innovative society in Europe 1550 isn't as high as 10, as that's a late game renaissance state. That's also why it doesn't go lower than 3, as the lowest numbers ought to be for 15th really backwards places.

Herr Doctor · Oct 26, 2006

Bordic said:
Yes very innovative, probably more than England going industrial...

If you noticed it is in orthodox techgroup… Or you want Poland-Lithuania to be slower in tech development than Russia in the 17th century?

Herr Doctor · Oct 26, 2006

Norrefeldt said:
I controlled INNOVATIVE, and corrected some. Corrected list and a suggestion, by no means a final one:

Code:

country Inno New? 1419 5 5 1500 1550 6 1600 9 5 1650 10++ 4 1700 1750 10++ 3 1800 6

Some reasoning: even a innovative society in Europe 1550 isn't as high as 10, as that's a late game renaissance state. That's also why it doesn't go lower than 3, as the lowest numbers ought to be for 15th really backwards places.

And in Europe none is in orthodox techgroup except East European countries, is not it?

Norrefeldt · Oct 26, 2006

Herr Doctor said:
And in Europe none is in orthodox techgroup except East European countries, is not it?

At least all western Europe are Latin, might be some mixing in Central and East. It's not about geography, but about who lagged in military tech after the foremost countries. Late 17th century Poland started to lag, as they didn't pick up the lessons from TYW as well as others did.
That system might be broken with Poland getting a free 7200 in land investments, half in 16th century. Russia get a total 3500 and Sweden 5450, equally divided between 16, 17 and 18th centuries.

Herr Doctor · Oct 26, 2006

Norrefeldt said:
At least all western Europe are Latin, might be some mixing in Central and East. It's not about geography, but about who lagged in military tech after the foremost countries. Late 17th century Poland started to lag, as they didn't pick up the lessons from TYW as well as others did.
That system might be broken with Poland getting a free 7200 in land investments, half in 16th century. Russia get a total 3500 and Sweden 5450, equally divided between 16, 17 and 18th centuries.

The fact is that in AGCEEP 16th-17th centuries Russia (coz it is twice as rich and almost does not have penalties on "wrong religion" proves) developing in techs faster than Poland-Lithuania, which is very wrong.

But I agree that in 1650s Polish innovativeness should be lowered.

Herr Doctor · Oct 26, 2006

Norrefeldt said:
At least all western Europe are Latin, might be some mixing in Central and East. It's not about geography, but about who lagged in military tech after the foremost countries. Late 17th century Poland started to lag, as they didn't pick up the lessons from TYW as well as others did.
That system might be broken with Poland getting a free 7200 in land investments, half in 16th century. Russia get a total 3500 and Sweden 5450, equally divided between 16, 17 and 18th centuries.

Comparing Sweden and Poland-Lithuania you should also take into account the usual size of these countries in reality and in game.

Norrefeldt · Oct 27, 2006

Herr Doctor said:
Comparing Sweden and Poland-Lithuania you should also take into account the usual size of these countries in reality and in game.

That's the reason I compared with Russia. I wanted to check Sweden as well, since I suspected they get a lot, to have something on the other side of the scale.
I'm very interested in some input on the exact figures we should aim for in Polish innovativeness, and other DP's as well. I intend to scrutinize all of them. IMO that's the first one should do when setting a country right.

Here's the list:

Code:

+1 (1571-1820) Poles are dominating in Küstrin II
+1 (1571-1820) Poles are dominating in Silesia II
+1 (1571-1820) Poles are dominating in Pomerania II
+1 (1553-1572) Frycz - Flavor
+1 (1573-1599) Warsaw Confederation
+1 (1576-1580) The Jesuit College in Vilnius developed into a university
-1 (1600-1700) Sarmatism - Flavor
+2 (1607) The Jesuit King
+1 (1646-1651) Siemionowicz - Flavor
+2 (1764) Stanislaw Poniatowski-'The Last King'

The new formatting introduced by Yodamaster and Aegnor was really helpful in extractiong this. All events are in order, and have the years in front of the name in comment. Wonderful!
As a start, I suggest to remove the +1 in all the first three events, without other changes to the events.

Herr Doctor · Oct 27, 2006

Norrefeldt said:
That's the reason I compared with Russia. I wanted to check Sweden as well, since I suspected they get a lot, to have something on the other side of the scale.
I'm very interested in some input on the exact figures we should aim for in Polish innovativeness, and other DP's as well. I intend to scrutinize all of them. IMO that's the first one should do when setting a country right.

Here's the list:

Code:

+1 (1571-1820) Poles are dominating in Küstrin II +1 (1571-1820) Poles are dominating in Silesia II +1 (1571-1820) Poles are dominating in Pomerania II +1 (1553-1572) Frycz - Flavor +1 (1573-1599) Warsaw Confederation +1 (1576-1580) The Jesuit College in Vilnius developed into a university -1 (1600-1700) Sarmatism - Flavor +2 (1607) The Jesuit King +1 (1646-1651) Siemionowicz - Flavor +2 (1764) Stanislaw Poniatowski-'The Last King'

The new formatting introduced by Yodamaster and Aegnor was really helpful in extractiong this. All events are in order, and have the years in front of the name in comment. Wonderful!
As a start, I suggest to remove the +1 in all the first three events, without other changes to the events.

I agree absolutely. This just has no sense in those events.

Also you can leave only +1 in Jesuit King event if others agree.

Bordic · Oct 27, 2006

Norrefeldt said:
The new formatting introduced by Yodamaster and Aegnor was really helpful in extractiong this. All events are in order, and have the years in front of the name in comment. Wonderful!

Ahemm...

unmerged(40707) · Oct 27, 2006

Norrefeldt said:
The new formatting introduced by Yodamaster and Aegnor was really helpful in extractiong this. All events are in order, and have the years in front of the name in comment. Wonderful!

Thanks, intention was clearly to help modders but Aegnor has nothing to do with reordering and years... It's me, alone...

But Aegnor's database and help was arguably precious for all other tasks related to events formatting.
And I don't say it was my idea at first (Bordic

). Anyway, I enhanced the concept in introducing deathdate too!

Norrefeldt said:
As a start, I suggest to remove the +1 in all the first three events, without other changes to the events.

Seems reasonable. And I agree for only +1 with Jesuit King.

unmerged(40707) · Oct 28, 2006

In order to avoid double vassalization POL-LIT, if Lithuania vassalized Poland in game, I suggest following modifications:

Code:

#(1432-1435) Pretender [COLOR=Yellow]-I-[/COLOR]
#by Crook
event = {
	id = 40208
	trigger = {
		event = 40207
		[COLOR=Yellow]NOT = { vassal = { country = LIT country = POL } }[/COLOR]
	}
	random = no
	country = POL
	name = "EVENTNAME40208" #Submission of Lithuania
	desc = "EVENTHIST40208"
	#-#

	date = { day = 2 month = january year = 1432 }
	offset = 30
	deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1435 }

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME40208A" #Excellent
		command = { type = vassal which = LIT }
		command = { type = treasury value = -50 }
		command = { type = stability value = 1 }
		[COLOR=Yellow]command = { type = sleepevent which = 258017 } #POL: Pretender[/COLOR]
	}
}

#-#Zygmantas has defeated his opponent, Svitrigaila, and submitted Lithuania to the Polish crown. Excellent news!

Code:

[COLOR=Yellow]#(1432-1435) Pretender -II-
#by YodaMaster
event = {
	id = 258017
	trigger = {
		event = 40207
		vassal = { country = LIT country = POL }
	}
	random = no
	country = POL
	name = "EVENTNAME40208" #Submission of Lithuania
	desc = "EVENTHIST40208"
	#-#

	date = { day = 2 month = january year = 1432 }
	offset = 30
	deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1435 }

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME40208A" #Excellent
		command = { type = breakvassal which = LIT }
		command = { type = vassal which = LIT }
		command = { type = treasury value = -50 }
		command = { type = stability value = 4 }
		command = { type = sleepevent which = 40208 } #POL: Pretender
	}
}[/COLOR]

Code:

#(1440) Pretender
#by Crook
event = {
	id = 40209
	trigger = {
		[COLOR=Yellow]OR = {
			event = 40208
			event = 258017
		}[/COLOR]
	}
	random = no
	country = LIT
	name = "EVENTNAME40209" #Murder of Zygmantas
	desc = "EVENTHIST40209"
	#-#

	date = { day = 19 month = march year = 1440 }

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME40209A" #Invite Casimir
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 077502 } #Zygimantas Kestutaitis
		command = { type = relation which = MOS value = -25 }
		command = { type = revoltrisk which = 48 value = 3 }
		command = { type = sleepevent which = 40211 } #LIT: Succession of Grand Duke Svitrigaila
		command = { type = sleepevent which = 40213 } #LIT: Succession of Grand Duke Michailis
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME40209B" #Reinstall Svitrigaila
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 077502 } #Zygimantas Kestutaitis
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 077510 } #Kazimieras
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 077504 } #Svitrigaila
		command = { type = relation which = POL value = -100 }
		command = { type = relation which = MOS value = -50 }
		command = { type = revoltrisk which = 48 value = 5 }
		command = { type = religion which = orthodox }
		command = { type = revolt which = -1 }
		command = { type = revolt which = -1 }
		command = { type = sleepevent which = 40213 } #LIT: Succession of Grand Duke Michailis
	}
	action_c = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME40209C" #Michalis
		command = { type = relation which = POL value = -50 }
		command = { type = relation which = MOS value = 50 }
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 077502 } #Zygimantas Kestutaitis
		command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 077510 } #Kazimieras
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 077503 } #Michailis Zygimantasis
		command = { type = stability value = -5 }
		command = { type = revoltrisk which = 48 value = 5 }
		command = { type = religiousrevolt which = -1 }
		command = { type = religiousrevolt which = -1 }
		command = { type = sleepevent which = 40211 } #LIT: Succession of Grand Duke Svitrigaila
	}
}

#-#Due to his decision to become effectively a Polish vassal, Zygmantas had next to nothing support among the nobility. In 1440, two Ruthenian nobles, brothers Chartoryskis killed Zygmantas in his castle in Trakai, and started the second phase of instability in Lithuania. The candidates to take over the Duchy were Mikhail, son of Zygmantas, Svitrigaila, and Wladyslaw. The latter was elected king of Hungary, and was unable to be in Lithuania, so the Sejm decided to send Wladyslaw brother, Casimir, as a Polish governor of Lithuania. Lithuanian nobles could not take such an indignation, and proclaimed Casimir as Grand Duke.

Norrefeldt · Oct 30, 2006

Sorry, Yodamaster and Bordic. Credit should be given to the right people.

The bug fix above seems lika a good one to me.

On to the Polish innovativeness. Removed innovativeness bonuses in red, changed (lowered) in yellow. Some events might need a slight rebalance.
+1 (1571-1820) Poles are dominating in Küstrin II
+1 (1571-1820) Poles are dominating in Silesia II
+1 (1571-1820) Poles are dominating in Pomerania II
+1 (1553-1572) Frycz - Flavor
+1 (1573-1599) Warsaw Confederation
+1 (1576-1580) The Jesuit College in Vilnius developed into a university
-2 (1600-1700) Sarmatism - Flavor
+1 (1607) The Jesuit King
+1 (1646-1651) Siemionowicz - Flavor
-1 #(1652) Liberum Veto in Poland ADDED!!
+1 (1764) Stanislaw Poniatowski-'The Last King'

This would bring the total to "New":

Code:

country	v1.50	New	Final?
1419	5	4	5	
1500		
1550			6
[COLOR=Yellow]1599[/COLOR]	8	7	5
1650	10++	6	4
1700		5
1750			3
1800	10++	6	6

This suggestion doesn't match my initial idea of how the values should develop, but without creating new events it's good enough. The lowered start value by one puts POL equal to VEN, SCO, NAP, LOR and LIT, and still higher than SWE, MOS, LAT, DAU and BUR at 3.

rybka · Oct 30, 2006

Norrefeldt said:
Sorry, Yodamaster and Bordic. Credit should be given to the right people.
The bug fix above seems lika a good one to me.

On to the Polish innovativeness. Removed innovativeness bonuses in red, changed (lowered) in yellow. Some events might need a slight rebalance.
+1 (1571-1820) Poles are dominating in Küstrin II
+1 (1571-1820) Poles are dominating in Silesia II
+1 (1571-1820) Poles are dominating in Pomerania II
+1 (1553-1572) Frycz - Flavor
+1 (1573-1599) Warsaw Confederation
+1 (1576-1580) The Jesuit College in Vilnius developed into a university
-2 (1600-1700) Sarmatism - Flavor
+1 (1607) The Jesuit King
+1 (1646-1651) Siemionowicz - Flavor
-1 #(1652) Liberum Veto in Poland ADDED!!
+1 (1764) Stanislaw Poniatowski-'The Last King'

This would bring the total to "New":

Code:

country v1.50 New Final? 1419 5 4 5 1500 1550 6 [COLOR=Yellow]1599[/COLOR] 8 7 5 1650 10++ 6 4 1700 5 1750 3 1800 10++ 6 6

This suggestion doesn't match my initial idea of how the values should develop, but without creating new events it's good enough. The lowered start value by one puts POL equal to VEN, SCO, NAP, LOR and LIT, and still higher than SWE, MOS, LAT, DAU and BUR at 3.

New seems fine
some time close to early 1700 the event could fire to lower innvativnes, but only if wettin was elected as king, if jakub sobieski was elected, it shouldnt fire
i could write such event, to compensate it if player later chooses leszczynski as king, it could go up with 1, event would fire at least 10 years after leszczynski rules the country, so in 1716 (after first election of leszczynski) or 1743 (after second election)
the changes i suggested make a lot of sense historically

unmerged(40707) · Oct 30, 2006

Norrefeldt said:
Some events might need a slight rebalance.

-2 (1600-1700) Sarmatism - Flavor

I suggest to remove innovative command in action_b then.

rybka · Oct 31, 2006

YodaMaster said:
I suggest to remove innovative command in action_b then.

in version 1.50, it is not +2, but +1

action_b = {
name = "ACTIONNAME258010B" #No, we are part of the West
command = { type = stability value = -2 }
command = { type = treasury value = -200 }
command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = 1 }

come on if you remove innovativness in action b has completely no sense! just to say "hey im from west" you loose 2 stab and 200 gold?????

unmerged(40707) · Oct 31, 2006

Must have read it too quickly. Maybe a boost in infra and trade?

Norrefeldt · Oct 31, 2006

rybka said:
in version 1.50, it is not +2, but +1

action_b = {
name = "ACTIONNAME258010B" #No, we are part of the West
command = { type = stability value = -2 }
command = { type = treasury value = -200 }
command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = 1 }

come on if you remove innovativness in action b has completely no sense! just to say "hey im from west" you loose 2 stab and 200 gold?????

I don't agree that you get nothing. The big thing you get is that you avoid all DP changes you get in option A.

rybka · Oct 31, 2006

Norrefeldt said:
I don't agree that you get nothing. The big thing you get is that you avoid all DP changes you get in option A.

You do get NOTHING, the fact that you dont get something negative, do not mean you get something positive

altough yes your point makes sense, but i would rather put -1 stab, and some revolt risk (4%?) for 3 years for example, also cost could be reduced to 100gold, 200 is porobably 1 year income. assuming you have to bribe some guys, one year income of country like poland are quite big bribes. note that you will also loose money due to stab hit and revolt risk durig 3 years
maybe one could name action b "Maintain status quo" and action c could be added, in this action you caouls increase innov by +1 but at more severe cost than in action b?

unmerged(40707) · Oct 31, 2006

This event is supposed to be a bad event. I agree with Norrefeldt but I understand your point of view.
Since we lowered innovative to -2 in action_a, it is resaonable to lower it with the same amount in action_b (i.e. 1-1 = 0 in action_b). Anyway, -2 stab and -200 treasury is cheap in order to avoid -2 innovative. Something like infra +200 (my proposal for a little boost) could be there to not have only "negative" commands in action_b but that's all.

AGC/EEP Poland-Lithuania thread

Colonel

Porphyrogenitus

Learned cat

Learned cat

Porphyrogenitus

Learned cat

Learned cat

Porphyrogenitus

Learned cat

Magister Militum

Just call me Yoda in private!

Just call me Yoda in private!

Porphyrogenitus

Colonel

Just call me Yoda in private!

Colonel

Just call me Yoda in private!

Porphyrogenitus

Colonel

Just call me Yoda in private!