• Crusader Kings II Expansion Subscription

    Subscribe to the CK II Expansion and enjoy unlimited access to 13 major expansions and more!


  • Paradox Midsummer Sale has arrived! Up to 75% off!

    Enjoy some sun and song this Midsummer, but when the sun goes down, the fun doesn't have to stop! Paradox has a festive sale on plenty of games to keep your summer nights going!


    June 18th - June 30th
  • Crusader Kings III Available Now!

    The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.


    Real Strategy Requires Cunning

unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
Twoflower said:
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.
The thing I don't want to happen Twoflower is Norrefedlt's claim that he is leaving if there are AI cheats in the game to effect the decision on whether or not the event is accepted. Call that whatever you like. I was just being blunt. Besides currently there are 5 nation specific AI cheats already in the game and the 2 big ones make AIs do things they can do but often don't, which is exactly what my event in question here does. So if he wants to leave then let him, because my event is just yet another one not the first one.
Twoflower said:
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,
I think a better way of describing it is to say that it stabilizes intended flow. Something that was supposed to happen often doesn't and this event corrects that because the engine working through the medium of the events we have forced on it has trouble making it happen correctly.
Twoflower said:
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 his province that he has helped him get return to Portugal for no apparent reason).
This is an invalid argument. The event effects only 2 AIs involved. If one is a human than it won't kick in. Therefore concerns that it will mess up a MP game are invalid.
Twoflower said:
For these reasons, I regard these cheats as a special type of cheats that I really don't want to see.
Yes but my point is that every seemingly good reason for why this event should not be allowed in the game I have already solidly refuted. That ought to count for something. Instead objection after objection is given with the same results. Once again even here your new objections are soundly refuted. So what is the problem? If their was a good argument against it that would be a good reason to reject it. But this is not the case. So why must it be rejected then?
Twoflower said:
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.
Yes they do go against the game's flow. And so do the Mameluke and Castile events I've pointed out but these were accepted already. So why can't mine be accepted by the same logic?
Twoflower said:
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.
But the Mameluke and Castile events don't do this. The AIs can accomplish on their own what they accomplish for it more easily. It's just that they often don't. And it's the exact same way with my event.
Twoflower said:
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.
Then why don't you propose that these other similar AI cheat events be removed? I've pointed this out already.

Pause for a moment and withdraw yourself from this debate. Look at it from a 3rd person's viewpoint who doesn't have a strong desire one way or the other. OK now let's analyze the results of this debate shall we?

The purpose of this event is to enforce historical developement that is not happening greater than 50% of the time. No one has disputed that it shouldn't happen greater than 50% of the time. Therefore it is a desireable outcome because this has more or less been stated in this thread and many others in the past. The overall consensus among the AGCEEPers is that majors need to form 75%-95% of the time. This is not currently the case with Portugal. Therefore it is a given that increasing this percentage is desireable. So this particular result of this event is universally desired by the AGCEEP community.

OK now I have laid down facts as to why Portugal does not form in excess of 50% of the time. You have rejected the premise that it doesn't form more often than this. I however have playtested it extensively and proven that this is false and indeed you and Norrefeldt have apparently stopped disputing this claim. Or at least are assuming that if it is innacurate that it isn't off by much and that lack of Portuguese AI formation is an accepted fact of the current condition of this mod.

Norrefeldt and you have given numerous objections as to why it would cause harm to the game. All of which I have soundly refuted.

You two have also claimed that you don't want AI cheats in the game or don't want AI cheats quite like this one in the game. I have pointed out that AI cheats like this one are already in the game. Therefore unless you are going to make a proposal for their removal there is no justification for rejecting the event on the basis of it's being an AI or cheat or that it is a certain degree or type of AI cheating that should not be in the game.

All of your objections in this post have been refuted too.

Now if this debate is going to come to any fair, logical, and rational solution then please tell me why the event should not be allowed in the game?

If I made points that you couldn't refute and you made points that I couldn't refute that would be different or if I made points that you could refute and you made points that I could refute that would be different too. But instead all of your points I have refuted and all of my points you were unable to refute. Do you see know why there is no excuse for it not to be added?

The purpose of the regional threads is to debate proposals for the AGCEEP. But if these debates result in people saying I disagree with your proposal and don't want it in the game but I can't refute your reasons for why it needs to be in the game and you have refuted all of my reasons for why it shouldn't be in the game but I still oppose it's addition to the game then we have made a farce out of the purpose of these threads now haven't we?

If debates in these threads cannot be resolved because the debate doesn't have to meet any logical, consistent, fair, and/or balanced criteria than what is the point of even debating proposals at all? Why don't we just put proposals right in the submissions thread and have the HC vote on every single one of them?

You see one of the dangers of you and Norrefeldt's not concedeing to at least tolerate this event being added to the game is that the whole concept of the regional threads being used as a means to debate proposals has been reduced to a meaningless concept. This debate is horribly onesided. Even you haven't disputed this and no doubt it would be folly for you to do so as I could easily counter with a list of all your objections that are no longer being used because the debate has shown that they are invalid and a list of all of my points that you have yet to refute.

So you need to weigh very carefully whether or not this debate should resolve the issue of this event being added or not. You may not like the event, but given the course of this debate it would be an extremely destructive precedent for you to set in the modding to community to continue to oppose it given the results of this debate.
 

Toio

Field Marshal
6 Badges
Jun 18, 2003
7.699
0
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
concerns

I have read this thread for a while and noticed that one problem crops up which has not been noted/rectified, ie Granada.
Firstly I cannot find any reference on the net for portugal interferring/warring with Granada by Joao I or Alfonso V .
So, I checked the Portugese events 260007, 260008 and 260009. These events have a startdate of 1419 to take on Granada.
I changed the startdate to 1489, played 3 tested games, result No wars between castile and Portugal. There are wars between CAS and POR . v . Aragon and whoever.
Worst result for POR is that they loose Oporto to Aragon once in the 3 games.

I suggest we either remove the above noted events completly or change their startdates.

Sometimes to solve problems we need to rectify the foundations. I feel that we are trying to drive from Paris to Berlin via Rome. Lets take a direct line.

Ps. A problem has occurred with my testing and that is POR spends all their money on trying to convert Tangiers ( they keep trying until conversion) and secondly POR sometimes chooses to not accept the Henry's explorers event.

Lets delete the Portugese missionaries by inclusion to existing events until the 1500s.
 

Toio

Field Marshal
6 Badges
Jun 18, 2003
7.699
0
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
idontlikeforms said:
Pause for a moment and withdraw yourself from this debate. Look at it from a 3rd person's viewpoint who doesn't have a strong desire one way or the other. OK now let's analyze the results of this debate shall we?

The purpose of this event is to enforce historical developement that is not happening greater than 50% of the time. No one has disputed that it shouldn't happen greater than 50% of the time. Therefore it is a desireable outcome because this has more or less been stated in this thread and many others in the past. The overall consensus among the AGCEEPers is that majors need to form 75%-95% of the time. This is not currently the case with Portugal. Therefore it is a given that increasing this percentage is desireable. So this particular result of this event is universally desired by the AGCEEP community.

OK now I have laid down facts as to why Portugal does not form in excess of 50% of the time. You have rejected the premise that it doesn't form more often than this. I however have playtested it extensively and proven that this is false and indeed you and Norrefeldt have apparently stopped disputing this claim. Or at least are assuming that if it is innacurate that it isn't off by much and that lack of Portuguese AI formation is an accepted fact of the current condition of this mod.
IDFL your laid down facts are wrong because you still have these events included 260007, 8 and 9. You must have realised thats these are first and main problems. IF YOUR FOUNDATIONS ARE NOT SOUND THEN THE REST IN CRAP.
IDFL have you done all possible checks on why Portugal does not form. I think you have not. Because I have found one problem. see thread # 302.

I told you long ago, you bypass certain things without testing.
You seem to have tunnel vision on these matters. You want explorers working before you rectify mainland portugal.

Look around on why portugal does not form. Is it their alliance with England?, Is Aragon too strong?( yes aragon), Attacking Granada in not historical, Is their relation with CAS at start too bad?,Wasting cash on conversions should be fixed. Accepting their explorers should be 100% for the AI.

You need to focus on portugals neighbours as well as POR.
 
Last edited:

unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
Toio said:
I have read this thread for a while and noticed that one problem crops up which has not been noted/rectified, ie Granada.
Firstly I cannot find any reference on the net for portugal interferring/warring with Granada by Joao I or Alfonso V .
So, I checked the Portugese events 260007, 260008 and 260009. These events have a startdate of 1419 to take on Granada.
I changed the startdate to 1489, played 3 tested games, result No wars between castile and Portugal. There are wars between CAS and POR . v . Aragon and whoever.
Worst result for POR is that they loose Oporto to Aragon once in the 3 games.
Your results here are less relevant than mine. I have deleted these problem events all together and reduced all other problematic events too and the total amount of times the Portuguese AI gets stomped by Castile and/or their ally(s) is 50%. Since you have three games only it will be a 2 v 1 or a 1 v 2 scenario if it is anywhere near everage anways.

Undoubteldy Aragon captured Oporto either because Aragon bordered Portugal prior to the DOW or they honered a Castilian DOW agaisnt Portugal.

I have playtested most of my current changes probably somewhere around 35 times and the average stays pretty consistently around 50%.
Toio said:
I suggest we either remove the above noted events completly or change their startdates.
This has more or less already been agreed to. Currently no one is objecting to it so I will undoubtedly submit it in the not too distant future. But myextensive playtesting has already shown that this will only reduce the high percentage slighlty. Which by the way is above not at 50% of the time with the events currently in the game.
Toio said:
Sometimes to solve problems we need to rectify the foundations. I feel that we are trying to drive from Paris to Berlin via Rome. Lets take a direct line.
Yes but the number one ingredient of the problem is that Granada starts off as a Castilian vassal and the proposal for it's removal has met fierce resistance so far. My vassalization AI event has only 2 resisters so far.
Toio said:
Ps. A problem has occurred with my testing and that is POR spends all their money on trying to convert Tangiers ( they keep trying until conversion) and secondly POR sometimes chooses to not accept the Henry's explorers event. Lets delete the Portugese missionaries by inclusion to existing events until the 1500s.
This is all random. I've seen all of this too but when you playtest it more you'll realize that they don't happen enough to cause any siginificant problems.
 

Twoflower

Vile treacherous Judas
82 Badges
Nov 7, 2001
3.915
2.250
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II
  • For The Glory
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
idontlikeforms said:
This is an invalid argument. The event effects only 2 AIs involved. If one is a human than it won't kick in. Therefore concerns that it will mess up a MP game are invalid.
No, it's not, reread this. I'm not silly. I was referring to a situation where one player is allied to AI Portugal, another to AI Castile and the two alliances fight a war where the humans get involved in favour of the AI and where the outcome of that war is "corrected" by this AI cheat. This would definitely suck for a MP game, and also be bad in singleplayer. I'd be quite pissed off to lose my Portuguese AI ally because he is vassalized in this event.
Yes but my point is that every seemingly good reason for why this event should not be allowed in the game I have already solidly refuted. That ought to count for something. Instead objection after objection is given with the same results. Once again even here your new objections are soundly refuted.
No, they're not, and you should try to understand arguments instead of just focussing on putting them down (and yes, I know your reaction will be accusing me of doing this :D)
Yes they do go against the game's flow. And so do the Mameluke and Castile events I've pointed out but these were accepted already. So why can't mine be accepted by the same logic?
But the Mameluke and Castile events don't do this. The AIs can accomplish on their own what they accomplish for it more easily. It's just that they often don't. And it's the exact same way with my event.Then why don't you propose that these other similar AI cheat events be removed? I've pointed this out already.
I've tried to explain the difference, and you are deliberately ignoring it. Your events will take back something that has already happened in the game, the cheats for the conquest of the Aztecs, Incas and Mameluks don't. They just make something happen that otherwise happens too rarely. If you don't understand this simple difference I cannot help you. Everything that follows in your post can just be ignored because you fail to understand this very simple difference, period.
There is also no way to argue logically about this. We probably disagree on the standards of allowing cheats, but I'd like you to accept that there at least is the difference I pointed out. You may not think that this difference matters, I do. This is because of different ideas on the game, not because of any logical arguments. You can argue back and forth on how you think that limitless employment of AI cheats will lead to more historical development - I completely agree with that, and just don't concede "defeat" because I have never disagreed with that statement. AI cheats make the game develop more historically, but I do not want to sacrifice some of the things that I love about this game for that. When forced to choose between historical development and the spirit of the game would always go with the latter, and therefore I do not want "subtractive" cheats (just so you understand: cheats that take back things that have already happened in the game) even if this means less historical development. Hate that or don't hate it, but there is no way of convincing me that this is wrong, because it cannot be "wrong", just not in line with what you expect from the game. A debate on this subject can therefore only serve to clear up points, not to completely resolve the issue. When it comes to deep philosophical differences like that, the only way to go is one of compromise and, in the questions where it is impossible to find consensus because of these differences, decision by HC vote. Welcome to pluralism kid :D
 

unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
Toio said:
IDFL have you done all possible checks on why Portugal does not form. I think you have not. Because I have found one problem. see thread # 302
Toio the sheer fact that you are making statements like this shows that you aren't following the debate very closely. Of course I've checked every possible problem causer here that not only I could think of but that everyone else here has thought of too.
Toio said:
You seem to have tunnel vision on these matters. You want explorers working before you rectify mainland portugal.
Look around on why portugal does not form. Is it their alliance with England?, Is Aragon too strong?, Attacking Granada in not historical, Is their relation with CAS bad?,Wasting cash on conversions should be fixed.

You need to focus on portugals neighbours as well as POR.
I'm gonna be kind Toio and not give your 2 posts here the bashing they deserve. Please go back further in this thread to post #114. That is how far back this mega debate has gone and yes all of your concerns here have been given more than adequate evaluation already. You're not contributing anything here that hasn't been thought of and discussed extensively in this thread already since post #114.
 

Toio

Field Marshal
6 Badges
Jun 18, 2003
7.699
0
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
idontlikeforms said:
Undoubteldy Aragon captured Oporto either because Aragon bordered Portugal prior to the DOW or they honered a Castilian DOW agaisnt Portugal.
No to the above, CAS and POR remained alliance members till 1460s in all of my games, the loss of Oporto to Aragon is because CAS and POR could not contain the alliance of Aragon, Papal and Naples.
 

unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
Toio said:
No to the above, CAS and POR remained alliance members till 1460s in all of my games, the loss of Oporto to Aragon is because CAS and POR could not contain the alliance of Aragon, Papal and Naples.
I see. But this is a rare outcome.
 

unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
Twoflower said:
No, it's not, reread this. I'm not silly. I was referring to a situation where one player is allied to AI Portugal, another to AI Castile and the two alliances fight a war where the humans get involved in favour of the AI and where the outcome of that war is "corrected" by this AI cheat. This would definitely suck for a MP game, and also be bad in singleplayer. I'd be quite pissed off to lose my Portuguese AI ally because he is vassalized in this event.
This is a valid point. But since it is a rare circumstance because in an MP game humans tend to bully AIs very well anways so it is unlikely to happen and because the AGCEEP isn't played very often in MP. this point is trivial compared to all of mine and therefore it detracts virtually nothing from the strength of my argument vs yours and consequently that you are forced to revert to trivial points like this to prolong this debate shows quite clearly that it is a horribly onesided debate and for the most part resolved as to which view is the superior one already. Certainly to use this argument to reject the benefit to the game in the considerably larger amount of them that would be played is sheer folly.

These kind of points can be made about just about any proposal in this forum. If only something this trivial has to be pointed to, to justify rejecting a proposal than the real determining factor in their acceptance isn't that they do no siginificant harm to the game and benefit it overall by far but that nobody bothered to think about it long enough to come up with a scenario no matter how rare to explain how it could possibly wreck the game. Twoflower by your criteria here I'm afraid virtually every proposal in this mod ought to be rejected. But the fact that they aren't shows that this is no adequate justification to reject my proposal here.
Twoflower said:
No, they're not, and you should try to understand arguments instead of just focussing on putting them down (and yes, I know your reaction will be accusing me of doing this :D)
Oh you doubt the veracity of my claim. Well then feel free to list an exception.
Twoflower said:
I've tried to explain the difference, and you are deliberately ignoring it. Your events will take back something that has already happened in the game, the cheats for the conquest of the Aztecs, Incas and Mameluks don't. They just make something happen that otherwise happens too rarely. If you don't understand this simple difference I cannot help you. Everything that follows in your post can just be ignored because you fail to understand this very simple difference, period.
My event exchanges 1 result for another and the cumulative result is that it adds considerably more in the long run on account of all the effect that the Portuguese AI will then have on the game that they otherwise would not have had if my event hadn't kicked in. To describe it as merely something that undos a result of the game is to focus on only a small apsect of it and to inflate the siginficance of that aspect in light of all the other effects that it has.
Twoflower said:
There is also no way to argue logically about this.
I just did above and I think quite well too.
Twoflower said:
We probably disagree on the standards of allowing cheats, but I'd like you to accept that there at least is the difference I pointed out.
Of course I admit to that difference. I simply am saying that in light of all the other factors involved it is quite trivial and therefore shouldn't be a significant contributing factor.
Twoflower said:
You may think that this difference doesn't matter and should not be used as a standard, I and others do.
Good then feel free to refute my points above as to why they shouldn't matter. And please don't repeat that they do without doing this first.
Twoflower said:
This is because of different ideas on the game, not because of any logical arguments.
Unfortunately I agree completely with you on this point. Indeed illogical differences are what is constipating the conclusion of this debate.
Twoflower said:
You can argue back and forth on how you think that limitless employment of AI cheats will lead to more historical development - I completely agree with that, and just don't concede "defeat" because I have never disagreed with that statement.
I have never stated that I am for limitless AI cheats. Why would insinuate that I did? Is it to try and increase the value of a weak argument in the eyes of your readers?
Twoflower said:
AI cheats make the game develop more historically, but I do not want to sacrifice some of the things that I love about this game for that. When forced to choose between historical development and the spirit of the game would always go with the latter, and therefore I do not want "subtractive" cheats (just so you understand: cheats that take back things that have already happened in the game) even if this means less historical development.
Well virtually all AI cheats are subtractive so this is a falacious argument. If Castile forms Spain, Castile is lost. If the Ottomans annex the Mamelukes than the Mamelukes are lost. Therefore this is an irrelevant point. Saying an AI cheat event subtracts from the game and therefore ought not to be added to the mod is really only a relevant claim if it causes a net subtraction in the game. And that net subtraction would have to be of more desireable results now wouldn't it?
Twoflower said:
Hate that or don't hate it, but there is no way of convincing me that this is wrong,
I certainly hope that you are a rational enough of a thinker to be able to see the greater relevance in my counterpoints here.
Twoflower said:
because it cannot be "wrong", just not in line with what you expect from the game. A debate on this subject can therefore only serve to clear up points, not to completely resolve the issue.
This may be the case for you. I certainly hope that it is not, but it is rather wishful thinking on your part to assume that everyone else will view your rationalizing the overimportance of trivial points of this debate as a grounds to block an understanding of the fact that your most important points have all been soundly refuted and my most important points have been all but invincible so far.
Twoflower said:
When it comes to deep philosophical differences like that, the only way to go is one of compromise and, in the questions where it is impossible to find consensus because of these differences, decision by HC vote. Welcome to pluralism kid :D
As I've pointed out before compromises that don't solve problems, and all but ensure their perpetual existence, aren't worth making.

Yes but what you are still dodging kid who is 10 years younger than me is that you are setting an extremely dangerous precedent in the AGCEEP community by not giving in on this debate. And that like I said is that your argument has taking a decisive blow. Need I go point by point of the history of this debate to prove this? And that refusing to give in in such a cirmustance makes a complete farce of the purpose of these threads. You havn't made a single siginficant point in this post. If this is all you have to prolong this debate than I reccommend you concede.

You may want to focus on only the most minutest details that have any favor to the view on this proposal that you desire to have but I choose to look at the bigger picture. And that picture is that if debates can be drawn out this long when the last points of the debate being made are this trivial than this then becomes an acceptable form of resolving proposals in this forum and thus essentially virtually any proposal can be rejected or approved with the reasons for why they are rejected and approved being of only the minutest relevance in those decisions. If the real reasons for why an event is rejected or accepted are that every proposal can be put to a HC vote no matter how strong the argument for them is or no matter how much one side of that argument has had both it's important and trivial points refuted then the mod will literally be reduced to a non-democratic non-comunity relevant mod run by an oligarchy of cruel tyrants who exercise their voting power for any whimsical and justifiable by irrational debating standards reason.

This is what is truely at stake here. Your argument by almost any standard imaginable has been soundly defeated by mine. Name one point so far that I have not refuted as showing that it is not a good and justifiable reason to reject this event!

I call on your good nature sir as a rational human being to not plunge this mod to this level of depraved tyranny by giving in on a debate that is undoubtedly one of the most onesided in this forum to date. Choose today where the real value of proposals in this mod will lie, in the soundness of the arguments that back them or in the brute force of the high council's right to vote.
 
Last edited:

Toio

Field Marshal
6 Badges
Jun 18, 2003
7.699
0
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
idontlikeforms said:
I'm gonna be kind Toio and not give your 2 posts here the bashing they deserve. Please go back further in this thread to post #114. That is how far back this mega debate has gone and yes all of your concerns here have been given more than adequate evaluation already. You're not contributing anything here that hasn't been thought of and discussed extensively in this thread already since post #114.

I apologise if I have offended, but I am the type of person that tells it like it is. Sorry.

Anyway, these are my AI files the I use for Joao I and Apfonso V

They are a huge improvement on the vanilla and AGCEEP.

Note: Some AI files have more than 3 digits for certain categories eg 12.5. My testing ( and shown friends who are computer programmers) indicates that the system does not know what this number is if it has more than 3 digits, it reads it as either 0 or 2.5.
This is because spaces, commers etc represent a digit. So best to place solid numbers in your testing categories than half numbers. half numbers work as long as they are 9.5 or below.

here are the files.
Joao I

# preferred areas for expansion

continent = { Africa }
region = { "West Africa" }
area = { "Cape Verde" Iberia Mauritania }

# % of the time we prefer to establish a tradingpost if both are good.
tradingpost = 80

# The amount of provinces we try to colonize at the same time
expansion = 8

# Bonus for areas to establish colonies adjacent to previous ones.
neighbour = 0

# Bonus/Penalty for establish colonies adjacent to other countries.
enemies = 0

# 100 = max trader rate, lesser means slower focus on sending a trader.
traders = 100

# 100 = Total monopolist, will refuse trade as much as possible.
monopoly = 50

# 100 = Total warmonger, 0 = absolute pacifist
war = 25
# yes = Nation fights to the death, no = Nation will try to get out of wars
ferocity = no

#if possible we WILL go counter reform
counterreform = no

#Which countries to conquer if possible. (to guide nation historically)
combat = { MOR }

#How important is it to gather troops close to base
base = 1.5
#How important is it to be as close to target position when gathering troops.
front = 7.0

#Evaluation factors for conquer plans
conquer =
{
# multiply enemy province value
enemy = 2.0
# multiplying supply factor
supply = 0.2
# factor for distance to not owner provinces
distance = 2.0
# factor for owned provines
owner = 4.0
# Multiplier for provinces not in supply.
notsupply = 2.0
# Multiplying the base constant for conquer.
base = 2.5
}

# Modifiers for garrison plans
garrison =
{
# low values keep troops stationed in low or no fortress provinces, high values keep troops near the largest fortress you have
fortress = 1.5
# low values don't acknowledge the strategic value of a province in deciding where to garrison, high values do
strategic = 4.5
# low values don't care if a province is big or small, high values do
size = 4.0
# low values don't care if a province has a good supply amount, high values do
supply = 8.0
# low values don't care if a province is occupied by you, high values do
war = 7.0
}

Alfonso V
# preferred areas for expansion

continent = { Africa }
region = { "West Africa" }
area = { Cameroon "Cape Verde" Gold Iberia Ivory Mauritania Senegal }

# % of the time we prefer to establish a tradingpost if both are good.
tradingpost = 80

# The amount of provinces we try to colonize at the same time
expansion = 8

# Bonus for areas to establish colonies adjacent to previous ones.
neighbour = 0

# Bonus/Penalty for establish colonies adjacent to other countries.
enemies = 0

# 100 = max trader rate, lesser means slower focus on sending a trader.
traders = 100

# 100 = Total monopolist, will refuse trade as much as possible.
monopoly = 30

# 100 = Total warmonger, 0 = absolute pacifist
war = 25
# yes = Nation fights to the death, no = Nation will try to get out of wars
ferocity = no

#if possible we WILL go counter reform
counterreform = no

#Which countries to conquer if possible. (to guide nation historically)
combat = { MOR }

#How important is it to gather troops close to base
base = 3.0
#How important is it to be as close to target position when gathering troops.
front = 5.5

#Evaluation factors for conquer plans
conquer =
{
# multiply enemy province value
enemy = 2.5
# multiplying supply factor
supply = 0.4
# factor for distance to not owner provinces
distance = 3.0
# factor for owned provines
owner = 3.0
# Multiplier for provinces not in supply.
notsupply = 4.0
# Multiplying the base constant for conquer.
base = 2.5
}

# Modifiers for garrison plans
garrison =
{
# low values keep troops stationed in low or no fortress provinces, high values keep troops near the largest fortress you have
fortress = 3.0
# low values don't acknowledge the strategic value of a province in deciding where to garrison, high values do
strategic = 3.0
# low values don't care if a province is big or small, high values do
size = 3.0
# low values don't care if a province has a good supply amount, high values do
supply = 6.0
# low values don't care if a province is occupied by you, high values do
war = 5.5
}

For Portugal (and never been able to make the AI do it) to see the top of the indian ocean for exploration guidelines, I sometimes use Venice to exchange with portugal explorations sites, I find that these help portugal a lot. note: will not work after 1440. as POR refuses always.
 

unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
This is pretty close to what I have except that I got them on warmonger 0 to reduce the amount of times Portugal DOWs Granada.
 

unmerged(2456)

Pure Evil Genius
Mar 29, 2001
11.211
0
www.hero6.com
Hmm i've been think about Portugal DoWing Granada...this usually happens once MOR is vassalized or annezed by portugal or her allies (although not always the latter).

Pehaps instead portugal might DoW some of the West African nations if it knows about them and leave Granada to Castile/Spain?

This doesn't harm anything if they don't know about them, but atleast makes them less likely to DoW Granada then.
idontlikeforms said:
Even with the MP lowering Portugal gets stomped by Castile just as often.
Well then it must be DP sliders if their manpowr is so similar. Or does Castile get great leaders during this period and portugal only gets explorers?
twoflower said:
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.
We can set the vassalization to end earlier. This isn't as unprecidented as making a very long truce as we already have it done for Timurid Empire in some cases during 1449. However i wouldn't drop it then before 1460 as Castile can make easy work out of Granada.
 
Last edited:

unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
Jinnai said:
Hmm i've been think about Portugal DoWing Granada...this usually happens once MOR is vassalized or annezed by portugal or her allies (although not always the latter).
Actually for some unknown reason the Portuguese AI prefers to DOW Granada. This of course is part of the problem.
Jinnai said:
Pehaps instead portugal might DoW some of the West African nations if it knows about them and leave Granada to Castile/Spain?
Portugal tends to DOW west African countries in the last quarter of the 15th century. Usually Granada is dead by then, probably by no coincidence why it then DOWs a west African country. Sadly this is in itself yet another AI problem as the Portuguese AI and the west African AI(s) fighting him almost always never profit from these wars. They just rack up inflation with no benefit. Rarely ever does it result in a province changing hands at the end of it. The worst part of it is the wars last a really long time too. Sometimes all the way until the conquest sequence begins and they cut way way down on Portguuese colonization. Unfortunately I'm running out of ways to curb this as well and may very well end up with making a yet another cheat to stop it as it's a big of enough of a problem to warrent it IMO.
 

unmerged(2456)

Pure Evil Genius
Mar 29, 2001
11.211
0
www.hero6.com
You could always request the removal of the coastal states from west Afriica in the African thread. I dunno what kind of reaction you'd get, but seeing as we've done the same for NA and west Africa is having similar issues...

Also Castile still kicks Portguese butt in your test with lowered manpower because all aspects of its DP sliders that affect warfare are equal or better than Portugal's for land-based warfare.

Also the implimentions to centralization haven't been changed either as Castle is 6 still and Granada is 2 still which is definatly wrong...i dunno why they weren't changed either, there was a whole thead devoted to that (as well as land being fairly low for Granada...only 1 step above Castile).
 

unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
Jinnai said:
You could always request the removal of the coastal states from west Afriica in the African thread. I dunno what kind of reaction you'd get, but seeing as we've done the same for NA and west Africa is having similar issues...
Ya but the problem is that if we ditch Benin we would have to lower subastantially the requirements for nation status and this would result in half ofthe occupied map being depopulated.

Vacating Palanas may help. I'll give it a try.
Jinnai said:
Also Castile still kicks Portguese butt in your test with lowered manpower because all aspects of its DP sliders that affect warfare are equal or better than Portugal's for land-based warfare.
Well the only DP setting that have a big effect is the naval/land and there's not much we can do about that. The main problem is that Castile can field more troops. He just outproduces Portugal and keeps piling them on. Plus having Oporto seiged strips Portugal of about a third of it's income right there. And this just widens the economic gap during wartime between these 2 countries.
 

unmerged(2456)

Pure Evil Genius
Mar 29, 2001
11.211
0
www.hero6.com
idontlikeforms said:
Ya but the problem is that if we ditch Benin we would have to lower subastantially the requirements for nation status and this would result in half ofthe occupied map being depopulated.

Vacating Palanas may help. I'll give it a try.
At the very least if it does help, that should be done, although it its done you might want to remove its CB shield from them because if protgual does colonize there, they'll have a CB against them.
Also Benin should probably have 100 relations with Portugal.
idontlikeforms said:
Well the only DP setting that have a big effect is the naval/land and there's not much we can do about that. The main problem is that Castile can field more troops. He just outproduces Portugal and keeps piling them on. Plus having Oporto seiged strips Portugal of about a third of it's income right there. And this just widens the economic gap during wartime between these 2 countries.
Still it doesn't affect Granada which should have a higher land.
But also their centralization should be lowered. While this will help castile stave off WE longer, it doesn't exactly help an AI as much and they also get less from taxes as well which makes it harder to pump out the troops.
 

unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
Jinnai said:
At the very least if it does help, that should be done, although it its done you might want to remove its CB shield from them because if protgual does colonize there, they'll have a CB against them.
Ya the core claim will need to be removed. I'm aware of that.
Jinnai said:
Also Benin should probably have 100 relations with Portugal.
I have them at 99 currently and it jsut postpones the problem for a few years. This is really my same point in the BB thread. Upping relations postpones wars not stops them from happening.
Jinnai said:
Still it doesn't affect Granada which should have a higher land.
But also their centralization should be lowered. While this will help castile stave off WE longer, it doesn't exactly help an AI as much and they also get less from taxes as well which makes it harder to pump out the troops.
This is sensible. The DP setting your talking about effect production efficiency not tax. Tax is more important because it's larger. But still your point otherwise is technically valid. I certainly don't oppose it.
 

unmerged(2456)

Pure Evil Genius
Mar 29, 2001
11.211
0
www.hero6.com
idontlikeforms said:
I have them at 99 currently and it jsut postpones the problem for a few years. This is really my same point in the BB thread. Upping relations postpones wars not stops them from happening.
If it can be postponed long enough that Portugal has atleast somewhat descent foothold in the area that's okay. Maybe upping them all the way to 200 might be in order for them and the Kongo.
 

Twoflower

Vile treacherous Judas
82 Badges
Nov 7, 2001
3.915
2.250
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II
  • For The Glory
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Knights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
IDLF, I hereby withdraw from the debate on AI cheats. I would not continue working on a mod that allows subtractive and straightjacketing cheats like this one because this is not the way I want the game to flow, and there is no sense in arguing this. I won't be trying to bring up any more arguments to convince you, since I know it's futile. You think you're right and I am gonna stick with my reservation regarding this type of AI cheats. Consider that tyranny or whatever you want, but let's get back to constructive work again please. We have agreed that removing the protection for Granada would probably solve the problem, too, and as I have said, it would even be more historical to have Castile attack Granada before the 1470s because Gibraltar was retaken already in 1462. I very often see Castile remain peaceful with the old setup until about 1435. If we manage to extend this period of peacefulness as much as possible by the changes to relations, warmonger settings etc suggested here, we might be able to push the date of AI Castile's first dow - that should be on Granada - until something quite close to the 1460s. And even if Castile attacks Granada already in the 1430s that would still be more historical than having it attack and annex countries that it did not attack and annex historically. As a matter of fact, Granada is the first country that Castile is supposed to dow, so giving more protection from Castilian aggression to Granada than to Portugal, Navarra and Foix, which results in these countries being attacked and losing territory instead of Granada, is quite ahistorical and unfair.
 

unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
Twoflower said:
IDLF, I hereby withdraw from the debate on AI cheats. I would not continue working on a mod that allows subtractive and straightjacketing cheats like this one because this is not the way I want the game to flow, and there is no sense in arguing this. I won't be trying to bring up any more arguments to convince you, since I know it's futile. You think you're right and I am gonna stick with my reservation regarding this type of AI cheats. Consider that tyranny or whatever you want, but let's get back to constructive work again please. We have agreed that removing the protection for Granada would probably solve the problem, too, and as I have said, it would even be more historical to have Castile attack Granada before the 1470s because Gibraltar was retaken already in 1462. I very often see Castile remain peaceful with the old setup until about 1435. If we manage to extend this period of peacefulness as much as possible by the changes to relations, warmonger settings etc suggested here, we might be able to push the date of AI Castile's first dow - that should be on Granada - until something quite close to the 1460s. And even if Castile attacks Granada already in the 1430s that would still be more historical than having it attack and annex countries that it did not attack and annex historically. As a matter of fact, Granada is the first country that Castile is supposed to dow, so giving more protection from Castilian aggression to Granada than to Portugal, Navarra and Foix, which results in these countries being attacked and losing territory instead of Granada, is quite ahistorical and unfair.
I agree with you about Granada. I'm not the one you need to convince. I am willing to accept not adding my event if Castile can use Granada like a punching bag like it does in the vanilla.

However supposing that this is rejected by too many, which I hope isn't the case, will you demand an HC vote if I put my AI vassalization event proposal in the submissions thread?