• 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.
I've fiddled with it some more and I can see that you are correct here already.
Daywalker said:
Look I already told you this is hard work, there is no corner cutting in this. You cannot just slap in a few values and expect it work like you thought it would. It almost never does.
Like I said, you can’t give him to little, but you can also not give him too much. That too will mess it up. If too much he will on his own account select exactly what forfill his ‘need’.

Ex. pick two areas only, like one on the west coast of America and say one in china. Have you ever wondered what makes him pick one over the other? Cause he will do it always, 100% of all games he will do the same thing. What makes him choose one area over another, for first exploration?
Is it location?, is it the area itself?, is it the provinces in the area?, is it distance?, is it the time it takes? Is it explores availability?, is it conquistadors availability?, is it the current attitude (all parameters) of the ai?, or is it something else?

Like I said, this is precision work! And it takes time, time, time, time, time… but you can make any explorer go anywhere you want, any time you want, by supplying the exactly right amount to explore at the right time.

- but remember that exploration setting, is also possible colonization candidates, which makes it even harder to do!
Are you saying that this line here effects colonization?
Code:
# The amount of provinces we try to colonize at the same time
expansion = 6
If so how exactly does it work. Because having it on 0 seemsto stop exploration, but I'm not 100% sure.

Does the AI shut down exploration later if it explores more than it was ordered to for lack of orders?
 
Daywalker said:
This is btw why Zheng He goes to Europe!
This is why he did. He doesn't anymore in AGCEEP.
idontlikeforms said:
he fact that Italy or Germany can unify etc actually annoys me...
Myself as well, but for a different reason as i'm not really against historically plasable events, but those are almost pure fantasy and can happen if i'm playing mongolia quite easily.
idontlikeforms said:
The fact is that if German and Italian unification events can be in the game then why can't my AI cheat here be in too? Is it any less historically plausible? This being the case the fact that someone doesn't mind that these 2 fantasy events are in the game but my AI cheat event can't be is rather hypocritical. I mean good grief my event actually helps the game. The Italy and germany unifacation events don't. They are just there for kicks.
Because I don't agree they should be in either.
idontlikeforms said:
Does the AI shut down exploration later if it explores more than it was ordered to for lack of orders?
This i do know. The AI will not shut down exploration. It will default to Americas if all areas are covered already. Also, if an explorer is heading in a direction and has discovered all he is assigned to do, he will continue on in that general direction until he hits land and then follow the coastline.
 
Jinnai said:
Because I don't agree they should be in either.
So are you actually against my vassalization event and if so why?
 
idontlikeforms said:
I personally am opposed to fantasy events in the game as a default setting. The fact that Italy or Germany can unify etc actually annoys me and this is also the case for some others too who hold fairly deterministic views. But eh, it's a minor point as it rarely ever happens. I haven't seen the AIs do it once yet.
Hmm. You've made my day with this post friend. You inadvertedly perhaps gave additional fuel to my argument. The fact is that if German and Italian unification events can be in the game then why can't my AI cheat here be in too? Is it any less historically plausible? This being the case the fact that someone doesn't mind that these 2 fantasy events are in the game but my AI cheat event can't be is rather hypocritical. I mean good grief my event actually helps the game. The Italy and germany unifacation events don't. They are just there for kicks.
You have misunderstood a major part of the concept of AGCEEP, or at least of EEP, then. Your deterministic AI cheats destroy the game's charm of being unpredictable and a game and not a historical simulation - and I'm referring particularly to this cheat and cheats like this one, not AI cheats in general; AI cheats that make the AI accomplish what it otherwise cannot accomplish are completely acceptable to me if it is proven that they are needed, but this one just tries to enforce something that already can happen in the game and is just not likely enough for your and my taste. The fantasy/alternate history for Italy and Germany are a completely different thing, really. These are exclusively reserved to a player - if you don't want them, don't play such a country, or just take the B option if you play the country and have fulfilled the conditions. This doesn't really hurt anybody and fulfills a major demand of a solid majority of the players (just start searching for threads in the main forum, the EEP forum, the AGC forum and the AGCEEP forum where people who otherwise don't post at all ask whether there is or will be an event for the unification of Italy and Germany, since this is a possibility that many, especially in the large silent group of non-posters, miss in the game. Ignoring that would IMO be bigtime against the spirit of this mod, and I say that although I have in the past opposed such events, too. And since we have a major and unresolvable disagreement, there is no sense in continuing the discussion, really, since it's just gonna go on as a flamewar. I could try arguing against your points, but that simply won't work since we have different ideas on what we want and what we don't want at all in the game, sorry.
EDIT: And just to reiterate, I'm not against all AI cheat events, just against this type of them. Besides, I would also still be happy if we could agree on a compromise regarding this. An event for AI and player that gives a choice and has some kind of historical explanation would be preferable to me, and this absolutely does not have to ressemble what I have posted.
 
Twoflower said:
You have misunderstood a major part of the concept of AGCEEP, or at least of EEP, then.
Huh? How?
Twoflower said:
Your deterministic AI cheats destroy the game's charm of being unpredictable and a game and not a historical simulation - and I'm referring particularly to this cheat and cheats like this one, not AI cheats in general; AI cheats that make the AI accomplish what it otherwise cannot accomplish are completely acceptable to me if it is proven that they are needed, but this one just tries to enforce something that already can happen in the game and is just not likely enough for your and my taste.
If Portugal doesn't form correctly that reduces variety in the game not increases it.

It seems you still doubt my 50% claim. Well let me give you some hard figures to chew on. I've kept track of how many times my AI cheat has had to kick in since you protested the veracity of my 50% claim. Anotherwards how many times Portugal got it's ass handed to them pre-1500.

Times where my event fired = 5.

Times where it didn't need to fire = 5.

One time Castile diplo-annexed Portugal, but without my event of course.

That's 50% bro. Just like I told you. Has anybody else given numbers to prove otherwise? I have all diplomatic changes here too AND Castile reduced to warmonger 0. Andd it still is a solid 50%.

Now I ask you are you content with a Portugal that amounts to squat 50% of the games? Cuz others correctly view this as a massive problem. Like WISK said a game without Portugal forming just sucks.

Twoflower said:
The fantasy/alternate history for Italy and Germany are a completely different thing, really. These are exclusively reserved to a player - if you don't want them, don't play such a country, or just take the B option if you play the country and have fulfilled the conditions. This doesn't really hurt anybody and fulfills a major demand of a solid majority of the players (just start searching for threads in the main forum, the EEP forum, the AGC forum and the AGCEEP forum where people who otherwise don't post at all ask whether there is or will be an event for the unification of Italy and Germany, since this is a possibility that many, especially in the large silent group of non-posters, miss in the game. Ignoring that would IMO be bigtime against the spirit of this mod, and I say that although I have in the past opposed such events, too.
You misunderstood. I am not proposing it's removal with that post. I'm simply pointing out that they are not more historically plasuible than my AI cheat event and therefore by what historical justification is my event rejected and those ones accepted?
Twoflower said:
And since we have a major and unresolvable disagreement, there is no sense in continuing the discussion, really, since it's just gonna go on as a flamewar.
I'm amused that you want to discontinue this discussion after you've continually dodged the most salient points of my argument.

Twoflower said:
I could try arguing against your points, but that simply won't work since we have different ideas on what we want and what we don't want at all in the game, sorry.
This makes me laugh. Yet again you dodge my arguments. Dodge. Dodge. Dodge. You haven't even attempted to respond to post #240. Why not? I'll tell you why. Because I am right on that one and you were wrong. I challenge you to prove otherwise. Disagree with me with an argument not without one please.

If my 50% claim is wrong please provide an argument as to why. Don't just say I'm wrong but not why.

Can you understand why I would want an event in the game that makes the work I've been doing on this mod for the past 2 months relevant almost everygame as opposed to only 50% of the time?

Can you understand why this one event which you are opposing is so important to the performance of the Portuguese AI and why it is so neccessary that out of all the work I've done for the Portuguese AI this one single event is the most important to making it all happen?

Since it is a matter of extreme importance we do need to keep debating or there should be a HC vote. Now I ask you will you please try to refute my arguments here or concede defeat?

If there was some other way to keep Portugal healthy 95% of the time for the first 100 years of the game I will gladly ditch my cheat event proposal but so far with all the controversy only one other option has been found to be adequately effective and that was your proposal which was to freeze them in peace mode. But others have expressed a rejection of it. I haven't. Would you prefer that to my event? If not please to try to refute my argument.
 
idontlikeforms said:
So are you actually against my vassalization event and if so why?
I want to see what a reasonable manpower reduction for Castile would do, minus that event. Right now Castile is at 38 manpower which as i said is more than enough.
 
Geez man you sure know how to alienate people and piss them off.
Why would you say something like that?

As to Germany and Italy 'forming'. They didn't have to form, they already existed. All they needed to be was legitimized. This almost happened not once, not twice, but almost three times. Italy was even CREATED by Napoleon (and where are the events for that?) .

The answer to Castille diploannexing Portugal (or not) is simple, as long as Portugal has vassals, it will never accept diploannexation.
Cheat events are unneccisary.
 
Jinnai said:
I want to see what a reasonable manpower reduction for Castile would do, minus that event. Right now Castile is at 38 manpower which as i said is more than enough.
I already did it about 4-5 times and I noticed no difference. Castile was just as big a bully as it ever was. Believe me if we can find another way to increase that 50% to 95% I'm all for it.
 
idontlikeforms said:
I already did it about 4-5 times and I noticed no difference. Castile was just as big a bully as it ever was. Believe me if we can find another way to increase that 50% to 95% I'm all for it.
How much did you reduce it by and are you testing it with or without the beta?
 
I'll toss in this question again since it either has been discussed a long time ago so noone bothered to reply to me, OR it was just missed :(

Does MA for CAS through POR work, and if so, how much does it help?

And, what actually makes CAS declare war on POR - is it a lack of troops? of economy? the sharper you manage to define what causes the AI to DoW Portugal, the easier it will be to target the problem effectively.

Events returning land or whatever IMHO are just fixing the symptoms, not the underlying problem. Especially since whenever the vasalisation DOES get cancelled the situation is exactly the same again.
 
Mad King James said:
Geez man you sure know how to alienate people and piss them off.
Why would you say something like that?
Because I'm pissed off. I got 2 months of hard work gone into a historical conquest sequence and it's all gonna be irelevant 50% of the games all because Norrefeldt and Twoflower don't want this vassalization event in the game for no damn good reason.

I mean good grief he's even flim-flamming his viewpoint. After I refuted all of his arguments he was reduced to an I just don't want any AI cheats in the game at all argument. Well guess what he ditched his only even remotely consistent and good reason for rejecting my event. Now he says AI cheats are OK but not just this one. Which essentially means according his logic that he doesn't want the event in the game but has no reason to reject it.

He even said my 50% of the time claim that Portugal loses Oporto and/or Algarve early was bunk. What did he base this on. I'll tell you what. Not a damn thing. I just cranked out 11 hands offs these past few days and proved his claim was totally false. Not to mention that my first 50% estimate was based on 30 so other hands offs I had done before. Does he care? Nope. Now please explain to me why he won't agree to letting the event in?
Mad King James said:
As to Germany and Italy 'forming'. They didn't have to form, they already existed. All they needed to be was legitimized. This almost happened not once, not twice, but almost three times. Italy was even CREATED by Napoleon (and where are the events for that?) .
But it didn't happen during the game time and therefore it is technically a historically plausible event not a historical event. And my event not only fixes one of the biggest problems in the AGCEEP, a problem that has been worked on by many others for long periods of time to no avail, but is just as much if not more historically plausible than these events that are already in the game.

Furthermore my event effects only AIs and not humans, therefore it is categorized as an AI cheat. There are currently 5 other nation specific AI cheats in the game already. Is the Ottomans annexing the entire Mameluke empire if they contol only 1 province a smaller AI cheat than this? Is Spain being forced to form for an AI a smaller cheat than this? Yet these events are in the game and I don't hear him or Norefeldt protesting them.

Is there a double standard here? Why were these events added but he threatens to block mine with his HC vote when my event is not as big as these and fixes just as big if not a bigger gameplay problem?
Mad King James said:
The answer to Castille diploannexing Portugal (or not) is simple, as long as Portugal has vassals, it will never accept diploannexation.
Cheat events are unneccisary.
That's a good point. My events have them with at least one vassal as of 1498. But the Castilian AI never has annexed Portugal after my event kicks in even once so far and they are there vassals and with very high relations almsot everytime for some time before this. Like I said I think it's because Portugal isn't small enough with in combination with Spain's BB at the time. Anyways as far as this is concerned my event won't result in an annexation at all or at least not more often than 1 in 20 or so. Which even if this is possible and I'm not convinced that it is, would still eb a heck of alot better than Portugal being an irrelevant or non-existent power in 50% of the games.
 
Jinnai said:
How much did you reduce it by and are you testing it with or without the beta?
Latest beta and 48 to 19. 2 higher than Portugal's. Sorry bro. Beleive me I just want something that will work. That's the axe I'm grinding. Not I just want to get my way.

Somethings can be compromised on but my event here has way too much resting on it's being added to give in without a better or equally as successful adjustment.
 
ForzaA said:
I'll toss in this question again since it either has been discussed a long time ago so noone bothered to reply to me, OR it was just missed :(

Does MA for CAS through POR work, and if so, how much does it help?

And, what actually makes CAS declare war on POR - is it a lack of troops? of economy? the sharper you manage to define what causes the AI to DoW Portugal, the easier it will be to target the problem effectively.

Events returning land or whatever IMHO are just fixing the symptoms, not the underlying problem. Especially since whenever the vasalisation DOES get cancelled the situation is exactly the same again.
It's inherent in the engine. I currently have toned down all of the relation hitting events between them, upped their starting relations to 125 from 50, deleted the non-Castilian and Granadan ownership of Granadan provinces events, and reduced both their warmonger settings to zero and it still can't stop Castile from DOWing Portugal 50% of the games.

The main thing that makes this happen more in the AGCEEP than the vanilla where it's more like 20%, is that Granada starts off as a vassal to Castile in the AGCEEP. In the vanilla Granada essentially acts as a punching bag for Castile to take out it's aggression on. This results in Granada getting killed off ahistorically early. So the AGCEEP crew made it a vassal to Castile and now the Castilian AI has to take out it's inherently programmed aggresssion elsewhere. It often winds up happening at the expense of Portugal because Portugal loses Oporto and/or Algarve in this war almost everytime. Thus we have a minor vanilla problem balooned into a huge problem in the AGCEEP.

Presently the Portuguese AI is lucky to not get jacked by Castile or it's ally 25% of the time, but I playtest it with the adjustments I mentioned above and got the 75% of the time beatdown down to 50%. The removal of the Granadan vassalization has met fierce resistance. Since my AI cheat keeps Portugal in the game probably around 95%+ of the time it's a more welcome adjustment. But these 2 guys I'm talking about lord their HC votes over it and threaten to veto it without any good reasons for it. I've refuted every single one of their reasons for protesting it soundly and still they obstinately refuse to allow it in the mod.

The vassalization usually doesn't get cancelled. At least not by the time I start over and re-test it. And besides Portugal winds up a Spanish vassal in 1580 anyways, so no big deal there.

I could try MA, but the problem is that Castile can just cancel it and besides it's not closer to historical accuracy than my event.
 
idontlikeforms said:
Are you saying that this line here effects colonization?
Code:
# The amount of provinces we try to colonize at the same time
expansion = 6
If so how exactly does it work. Because having it on 0 seemsto stop exploration, but I'm not 100% sure.

Does the AI shut down exploration later if it explores more than it was ordered to for lack of orders?

Yes, that is, what it is for, ‘expansion’
As the text says, this is the number of simultaneous province the ai tries to colonize. The number is not fully exact. Especially on low numbers, like 1-2 it might run as many as 3-4 colonies / tps at a time. On higher numbers, say 10, it is pretty accurate.

Meaning if expansion is 10, he will start as many as 10 colonies / TP at a time, before finishing any of them. That does not mean he will not finish any before reaching 10!
He will not begin any more before at least one has reached +1000 / level 6 TP.

The most predominating reason for colonization, or rather lack there off, is money! You give the ai 50.000 and he will colonize none-stop.
Spain and Portugal ai needs money to do it right! – that is why I give them money! Now I know several people have question why I do this (in my ai). Ai cheat blab blab… Portugal and Spain cannot fight on good fate and ‘historical event’; they need full-scale soldier producing city colonies at the fire point. Not 50 years later, but now!
There certainly is no lack of colonist by both – what they lack is MONEY! to use them.

As you stated a zero expansion value, completely stops colonization and exploration. That goes for both explores and conquistadors.

‘Continent’, ‘region’ and ‘area’ are for both colonization and exploration. If you ask me, this is not good made by paradox. It makes it unnecessarily hard to make good exploration, without having the ai colonize every province on the road.
See, ex. Portugal, you cannot just tab in, says Ceylon. Well you can, but it does not work this way. The ai does not like extreme long exploration missions, where all or most is unexplored. He will eventually go there, but it might take 50-100 years, in the meantime he will just tick around in the Atlantic, make a couple of America mission or sail the African coast.
What you got to do is, slowly guide him there. Slowly down the African coast, up again, to Indian, down Indian, - and Ceylon. But in this slow process you risk him colonizing the very area you have to use to make him explore.
This is test over and over again. You wanna use all available areas to make those quick missions the ai likes, and followers, but at the same time you might not want him to colonize. So it’s an ever battle of making the explores explore, but remove the area from the list before he can colonize it. Here comes the ‘expansion’ value and the money he has, in.
Knowledge of what explores what country has at what time is crucial!

But there is more. You also don’t want to let the ai hanging on areas to colonize, because then he will, like explores, begin on anything that is available. And that you don’t want either.
For Portugal and Spain this is not the greatest problem, as they will only colonize inside the TOT, always – regardless if it has popped or not (hardcoded).
But take somebody like Polen in stock. He has only an expansion of 1, but he will slam down on everything that is available.


‘Tradingpost’ has an indirect effect on exploration. A zero value does not mean the ai always makes colonies, as 100 also not mean the ai exclusive makes tps. The Provinces in themselves has a say in this. Btw any tps will eventually be made a colony regardless.

But for exploration. If you set ‘Tradingpost’ to 100, he will often (but not always) make tps. He may make 40 tps to one colony or something like that. Anyway if, staying with Portugal, Portugal only make tps on the Africa continent, his explore mission is still very long, even if he has discovered all around the African coast – and he does not like that.
Explores work, in what I would call, explore missions – and here it is!! - the ai uses only ONE explore at the time. You can give him hundred; he will use ONE only at any given time.

This might account why some people don’t think the ai explores during war-time (which he does), seeing a horde of explores lying in port (Portugal, Spanish, Dutch).

So these ‘explore missions’. One ai sails out explores something and returns to port, at the same time a new explores sets out. At the very time the current explore begins his return voyage, the next sets out. This is the only time you will see more than one ai explore of the same country at sea at the same time.
So if your Da Gama does not explore, it’s because another one is at sea.

Now if he only has tps, he has to return all the way to Portugal, and eventually sail from there again. It would be much nicer if Portugal has a colony (with port) on the western coast of Africa – cause then his explore mission are short, and that he likes.
These 1-2-3 years explores that Portugal has in stock around Da Gama time, are, in short, useless!! They in fact only take up good explore time from the longer ones. It is direct negative on the ai. Believe or don’t!

For ultimate performance, sleep ALL explores of all nation when ai played. Give those in need 1 random explore every 12 years none-stop. Then you will see ai exploration.
After Da gama dies, there is one explore left (to 1530) and Portugal is explore-less till 1600 and this is the time when he has to make money from the yet unexplored Indonesia, are you kidding me?? I give him explores none-stop in these 70 years and that I why I have heat (Dutch, Spain etc..) in Indonesia and Stock and AGCEEP don’t!. Well there is not really much to fight about in Indonesia in AGCEEP, it is mostly already taken.

So in a nutshell (still Portugal case) if Portugal does not have a port colony on the western coast of Africa, or at least the southern part of the eastern side, he will be experiential much worse of in the exploration of Indian and Indonesia.

Ohh I could go on like this for some time. There are a lot of tricks and a lot of things to consider.
 
Thnx for the pointers DW. I know about half of this already but the other half fills in alot of my holes in understanding the AI explorations. I'll comment on this post more thoroughly probably tomorrow or sunday as it's pretty long.

My main problem is that even when I can get Portugal to explore after 1500 or so well, I can't consistently get him to explore Malacca by 1515 and really for my event sequence Jan 1511 is most ideal. My Portugal has ports in east Africa by 1502 and in India by Nov 1506 and still it can't get there in time consistently. This is my primary hangup in my work and if I can beat it I can submit a massive amount of changes to the AGCEEP. Is there anything I can do that you can think of to get the AI to do this more consistently?
 
idontlikeforms said:
Latest beta and 48 to 19. 2 higher than Portugal's. Sorry bro. Beleive me I just want something that will work. That's the axe I'm grinding. Not I just want to get my way.

Somethings can be compromised on but my event here has way too much resting on it's being added to give in without a better or equally as successful adjustment.
Ok well the beta also gives manpower from Granada, but that isn't much.

More importantly, does Spain take Oporto when its manpower is lowered as often?
 
Jinnai said:
Ok well the beta also gives manpower from Granada, but that isn't much.

More importantly, does Spain take Oporto when its manpower is lowered as often?
Yes Jinnai. For the last time friend, I couldn't notice even a slight difference. Sorry if it's not what you wanted to hear. I had my doubts about this but I am and was certainly open to the possiblility of it working.

MP from Granada isn't usually relevant as most of the aggression takes place while Granada is still alive.

Even with the MP lowering Portugal gets stomped by Castile just as often.
 
IDLF, I really don't want to argue with you, and I'm afraid that we have misunderstood each other quite a bit in the recent posts. My main concern is that such changes will not tear the community apart, and people like Norrefeldt leaving would be a terrible pity. I was also not too sure what I want myself during the discussion, and have slightly changed my opinion between several posts, as you may or may not have noticed, so please let's just forget about the bad blood and try to find a reasonable solution that will be acceptable for most people.
So, as I understand it, the question comes down to which of several rather undesirable things we want:
1. Portugal being crippled because of losing Oporto and other provinces to Castile too often (whether it's 20, 30 or 50 percent of the games just affects the gravity of the problem, not the fact that the problem exists)
2. Using an AI cheat or at least a pretty deterministic event
3. Seeing Castile attack and annex Granada early, reversing several changes that have been made in the past. It should be noted though that Castile was not as peaceful towards Granada as our current setup implies. Gibraltar was annexed already in 1462, so Castile attacking Granada earlier than now really wouldn't be completely wrong.
I'm personally not too sure what I want, however I'm inclined to think that the third might be the least undesirable of three bad things. This however depends also on whether Castile would leave not only Portugal, but also Navarra and Foix alone if it is allowed to attack Granada.
 
Twoflower said:
IDLF, I really don't want to argue with you, and I'm afraid that we have misunderstood each other quite a bit in the recent posts. My main concern is that such changes will not tear the community apart, and people like Norrefeldt leaving would be a terrible pity. I was also not too sure what I want myself during the discussion, and have slightly changed my opinion between several posts, as you may or may not have noticed, so please let's just forget about the bad blood and try to find a reasonable solution that will be acceptable for most people.
OK Friend fine with me.

I don't want to see the communtiy tear apart either. I have expressed in this thread recently to Norrefeldt that I respect him and don't want him to leave. However if the possiblility of Norrefeldt leaving is the one deciding factor in rejecting this event I think that would set a very dangerous precedent to reject it on that basis. It certainly wouldn't be a fair and reasonable solution to me to minimize the work I've done these past months because somebody gets to muscle out any proposal they dislike for few or weak reasons by threatening to leave. It would send a message to all AGCEEPers that there is a double standard in this mod and that anytime a HC member doesn't like something as long as he really doesn't like it it will be rejected with or without good reasons.
Twoflower said:
So, as I understand it, the question comes down to which of several rather undesirable things we want:
1. Portugal being crippled because of losing Oporto and other provinces to Castile too often (whether it's 20, 30 or 50 percent of the games just affects the gravity of the problem, not the fact that the problem exists)
2. Using an AI cheat or at least a pretty deterministic event
3. Seeing Castile attack and annex Granada early, reversing several changes that have been made in the past. It should be noted though that Castile was not as peaceful towards Granada as our current setup implies. Gibraltar was annexed already in 1462, so Castile attacking Granada earlier than now really wouldn't be completely wrong.
I'm personally not too sure what I want, however I'm inclined to think that the third might be the least undesirable of three bad things. This however depends also on whether Castile would leave not only Portugal, but also Navarra and Foix alone if it is allowed to attack Granada.
Well the third will cut down the bullying considerably. I for one would go for that. If I could implement everything I want, I'd want both 2 and 3 to be done but as I've said before I'm perfectly willing to compromise as I'm a team player. It's just that compromising on issues that don't solve major problems currently in the mod and will essentially prevent that kind of a solution are in my opinion things that shouldn't be compromised on. And this is why I have put up such a fierce argument and not backed down yet.

This being the case I'm perfectly willing to settle for 2 or 3 as either one will do much to correct the problem at least to a large degree. However although you may be willing to settle for 3, Garbon has expressed that he is opposed to that. So that will still need to be resolved yet.
 
IDLF, I don't think any HC member would be enough of a dick to use threats of leaving to push his ideas through without any sensible reason. Norrefeldt has said this not to influence the decision, but has stated by this that a mod that employs AI cheats like this isn't something he feels he would like to play or work on, for several very serious reasons. I share not all, however most of these concerns, which you can safely consider the concerns of most old EEPers and also of large parts of the mp community. It concerns the EEPers because such cheats are outright against the EEP's philosophy, which was based on enhancing the game rather than dramatically altering the way it works and flows, which such AI cheats would definitely do, and it concerns the MP people because they would hate such things having an influence on their game, because they can always in some way give one player an unfair advantage and another an unfair disadvantage - imagine for example a game where one person is playing England and helping Portugal and another person is France and allied to Castile, and these two alliance fight a war that ends with Castile taking Oporto, but nothing more, because English support has saved Portugal - how silly and unfair would it then be to have Portugal vassalized to Castile (or, if you'd leave the vassalization out, how annoying would it be for France to see Castile return the province that he has helped him get to Portugal for no apparent reason).
For these reasons, I regard these cheats as a special type of cheats that I really don't want to see. These cheats are "subtractive", they try to make something that already has happened in the game undone in order to "correct ahistorical development" and thereby go against the game's flow. Cheats that I would consider acceptable are "additive" cheats, i.e. those that allow the AI to do something that it otherwise would not do or would not be able to do; they try to make something that should happen, but cannot happen in the game happen and thereby support the game's flow. I hope this differenciation is understandable to you, you shouldn't think that I'm just hypocritically trying to make up fake arguments against your proposals - I had to make up my mind myself why I feel that this particular type of cheats is bad.