• Victoria 3 - Sign up now!

    The journey begins, sign up now and get a special in-game item when the game is released.


  • 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
  • Crusader Kings II Expansion Subscription

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


unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
Jinnai said:
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.
Ya but what happens is that they then ally them and then get entangled with their wars because thye then DOW another west African AI. Remember AIs weigh the economic strength of their alliance vs another AIs alliance when deciding to DOW or not. This of course has the same problematic result for Portugal.
 

unmerged(2456)

Pure Evil Genius
Mar 29, 2001
11.211
0
www.hero6.com
idontlikeforms said:
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?
The otgher problem is that Granada enters an alliance with Morocco and Algiers. This causes Castile to go to war with them, usually by itself, and get huge chuncks of unhistorical land in North Africa.

Also though, reguardless, Castile's BB should be increased to something like 10. I had a recent diploannexation of Leon and conquest of some muslim states. 0 BB for Spain is not good.
 
Last edited:

unmerged(2456)

Pure Evil Genius
Mar 29, 2001
11.211
0
www.hero6.com
idontlikeforms said:
Ya but what happens is that they then ally them and then get entangled with their wars because thye then DOW another west African AI. Remember AIs weigh the economic strength of their alliance vs another AIs alliance when deciding to DOW or not. This of course has the same problematic result for Portugal.
Not really. By the time Portugal finds Benin it should have itself an alliance system already. Sure flukes can happen and they won't have a good one, but they could also end up in an alliance with Granada.
 

Norrefeldt

Porphyrogenitus
Aug 1, 2001
7.433
0
Visit site
IDLF said:
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.
You are way off here IDLF. What we don't do here is let one side of the discussion decide how infallable his sides' arguements are and how useless the other side's arguements are.
I agree with Twoflowers points and more or less share his view on how this mod should look.
I think the only way to resolve a debate like this is by a HC vote. That was one of the reasons we made a HC. Toio has a good point about the events for Portugal that cedes provinces to CAs/SPA. The relation hits there could be lower, or the events removed. If they are kept it will probably lead to war between POR and SPA, since SPA has cores there. They do some good.
 

unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
Jinnai said:
Not really. By the time Portugal finds Benin it should have itself an alliance system already. Sure flukes can happen and they won't have a good one, but they could also end up in an alliance with Granada.
I'm just speaking from personal observation. Sometimes the scenario you just explained is what happens. Sometimes what I just explained happens. But the point is that what I just explained happens often enough that it is a serious problem. You scenario here only happens if Portugal is not the leader of the alliance. Sometimes Portugal is allied to Castile and a west African country and then the problem still happens.
 
Last edited:

unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
Norrefeldt said:
You are way off here IDLF. What we don't do here is let one side of the discussion decide how infallable his sides' arguements are and how useless the other side's arguements are.
Where am I off at? My point is that this discussion has resulted in every one of my main points being un-refuted and every one of your guys main points being refuted. If that doesn't count for something in the minds of the people involved in this debate than it is all but irrelevant to debate in the first place. And that is my point. If we can debate and no matter how weak one of the arguments is it can't be resolved or one side refuses to gives than the mod just gets reduced to a am a HC member and I can block anything from getting in no matter how pointless my argument for rejecting it is kind of thing. That's what I don't want to happen. I don't want us non-HCers to have our capacity to contribute to this mod to be diminished.
Norrefeldt said:
I agree with Twoflowers points and more or less share his view on how this mod should look.
Thats nice but surely you must realize by now that there is a definite problem with the Portuguese AI and that problem needs to be solved not ignored. Do you prefer the removal of Granadan vassalage over my cheat event. Because it is just senseless to block a solution to a problem with no other alternative. All that will do is force the problem to remain. Worse case scenario my AI cheat event should be added then removed if another better solution is found. But surely you must realize that doing squat to fix the problem would be the worse case scenario not that my event getting added? Even from the perspective of someone who doesn't like it. I don't like it either. But it works. And if it's my event vs nothing, I think it would be foolish to just veto it in favor of nothing.
Norrefeldt said:
I think the only way to resolve a debate like this is by a HC vote. That was one of the reasons we made a HC.
Technically by the submissions rules all I have to do is wait for this discussion to die down then submit the proposal. At that point one of the HC members may, if they choose to, force it to a vote. But jumping ahead and not even waiting for this, to force it to a vote would be an over-use of an HC member's power.

The liberal and frequent enforcement of HC member voting power is exactly what I don't want to happen. That sends a message to us non-HC members that says "we HC members have all the real power here and don't kid yourself we have no compunction about using it for any reason that suits our fancy." See I don't want this mod to be an HC centered mod where the rest of us give proposals and HC members on a whim without good reasons reject or accept them. It's not like if a proposal gets in the mod it's there permanently and can't be removed. What's the sense in using it except in cases where 2 sides have very good arguments? That is not the case here. That you agree with Twoflower's views should be irrelevant. It's whether you have a better argument or not that should count.
Norrefeldt said:
Toio has a good point about the events for Portugal that cedes provinces to CAs/SPA. The relation hits there could be lower, or the events removed. If they are kept it will probably lead to war between POR and SPA, since SPA has cores there. They do some good.
Ya but if you were paying more attention to this debate Norrefeldt you would have realized that I already deleted these troublesome events and have explained why too. He just failed to realize that that was already addressed.
 
Last edited:

unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
Jinnai said:
The otgher problem is that Granada enters an alliance with Morocco and Algiers. This causes Castile to go to war with them, usually by itself, and get huge chuncks of unhistorical land in North Africa.
They usually call on their allies, but yes they do often get a province or 2 in north Africa. But this is better than Portugal getting whacked 50% of the time.

Also though, reguardless, Castile's BB should be increased to something like 10. I had a recent diploannexation of Leon and conquest of some muslim states. 0 BB for Spain is not good.[/QUOTE]
We could try this. Castile does sometimes diplo-annex Navarre early.
 

Twoflower

Vile treacherous Judas
83 Badges
Nov 7, 2001
3.929
2.299
  • 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:
Thats nice but surely you must realize by now that there is a definite problem with the Portuguese AI and that problem needs to be solved not ignored.
That's just not right. There is the possibility for the AGCEEP to decide to just accept that Portugal will be weak in a third or whatever portion of the game in order to not sacrifice the basics of the mod's philosophy or to avoid other things that are not desired by most people. I'm not saying that this would be a good decision, but it still is an option, you gotta acknowledge that, and even people who'd prefer that are not necessarily complete morons who fail to understand your superior reasoning; they just have different priorities, and you finally should accept that.
That you agree with Twoflower's views should be irrelevant. It's whether you have a better argument or not that should count.
No. I did not try to argue with you anymore because it is an unrefutable fact that we have different valid opinions on certain things. Please grant other people the right to expect different things from the mod than you do, and please just tolerate other opinions. You only think you have "completely refuted" other opinions because of course those opinions don't work when judged on the base of your own opinion and your own premises. This is not an appropriate way to handle other opinions. Acknowledging that there are different ways of thinking which lead to different sets of mind is the very essence of political pluralism.
Insisting that any debate can always be solved by "superior arguments" and there cannot be several equally valid views based on different sets of thinking to me is a very totalitarian and thus disgusting way of thinking.
And btw, just as an amical reminder, read the forum rules. They say:
4. You will respect the rights of other users to have their own opinions.
 
Last edited:

unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
Twoflower said:
That's just not right. There is the possibility for the AGCEEP to decide to just accept that Portugal will be weak in a third or whatever portion of the game in order to not sacrifice the basics of the mod's philosophy or to avoid other things that are not desired by most people.
Why would many others and myself want to continue to help out with and play a mod that is content with this kind of approach. Who wants to play a mod where it's a stated priority to keep problem areas of the mod unsolved because a non-common technique is the only solution to the problem? Why would I want to work on a Portuguese AI that is condemned to get whacked 50% of the time?

THe basics of the mods philosophy? Did you miss the part where I pointed out that other AI cheats like this one are already in the game? Are you against them too? If so why not propose their removal by the same logic that you are proposing this proposal shouldn't be added?
Twoflower said:
I'm not saying that this would be a good decision, but it still is an option, you gotta acknowledge that, and even people who'd prefer that are not necessarily complete morons who fail to understand your superior reasoning; they just have different priorities, and you finally should accept that.
I accept that. I just don't want to help contribute to that kind of a mod and no doubt many others don't want to either let alone actually play it. This postion may please you and Norrefeldt but it would undoubtedly alienate many others including myself. Is that a satisfactory solution to you? Do you want that kind of an outcome? Is this a community mod or an HC mod?
Twoflower said:
No. I did not try to argue with you anymore because it is an unrefutable fact that we have different valid opinions on certain things. Please grant other people the right to expect different things from the mod than you do, and please just tolerate other opinions.
I do tolerate their opinions, but when they want a problem to remain unsolved because they just don't like the solutions available I find that unnacceptable. So in an effort to not force others and myself to give up on this mod completely I give it the best shot I can. I'm highly annoyed that others in this forum aren't analyzing the long term consequences of their decisions and are content with simply not solving problems because the solutions aren't methods that they enjoy.

I don't like AI cheats either. I don't like this AI cheat I'm proposing either. We are on the exact same side in that respect. We agree 100% that we don't like AI cheats. The difference is I'm willing to go to greater lengths to fix gameplay problems. I'm not content with them remaining. If too many people here aren't or too many people here are willing to exercise their voting power to block solutions so candidly than I will undoubtedly leave this mod. Not because I want to, but because fixing it is being blocked so what's the sense me or anyone else who want's a mod that's worth playing more than a few times remaining and helping out? Please think of the consequences for your decision. Do you want this to happen? Is it more important that this particular AI cheat not be added than this outcome I'm talking about here not happen? It's not like I'm the only one who has stated these kinds of concerns for this mod. Do you want a mod that functions with very stringent rules and boundaries that cannot be crossed or do you want a mod that will appeal to alot of people. You may not want to consider this but it is in fact what is literaly at stake.
Twoflower said:
You only think you have "completely refuted" other opinions because of course those opinions don't work when judged on the base of your own opinion and your own premises.
This is not accurate. The very fact that you have had to make up a new objection then abandon it and make up a new one over and over and over again proves that they have in fact been refuted. Do I need to make a list of your objections to jog your memory here. Why does this not matter to you? You lost the argument plain and simple and now you want to block my proposal just because you don't like it. That's hard to swallow bro. I spent so much work on this and spent so much of my time pointing out why it helps so much and refuting all your objections and now the bottom line is your going to reject it inspite of all of this. I can asure I don't want to help out here or play this mod anymore if this is the kind of outcomes I can expect no matter how strong of an argument I give and no matter how weak of an argument is given against it. The mere fact that you have reverted to a let's not argue about it anymore stance shows that you've run out of excuses? Has your excuse well been exhausted? Seems like it huh?
Twoflower said:
This is not an appropriate way to handle other opinions. Acknowledging that there are different ways of thinking which lead to different sets of mind is the very essence of political pluralism.
But somewhere along the line we have to stop worshipping pluralism and try to objectively think about what does and doesn't work. If we are all just trying to make the mod the way we want and we won't budge when others have different ideas, then how will this experiment in modding work? The fact that you or I don't like a proposals is no rational basis for determining what should and shouldn't be added. We need to step away from our own opinions and objectively analyze the situation. Do you want major gameplay problems to remain in the game? If no you need to be willing to got the distance in removing them or else you don't really want this now do you?

Twoflower said:
Insisting that any debate can always be solved by "superior arguments" and there cannot be several equally valid views based on different sets of thinking to me is a very totalitarian and thus disgusting way of thinking.
Well there can be equally valid views at least in theory and no doubt at times something like this may very well happen. But the fact is that this is not one of those cases. Proposals must be weighed on the strength of their arguments for and agaisnt them. Without this happening the idea that this a community mod is just mythical.
 

unmerged(2456)

Pure Evil Genius
Mar 29, 2001
11.211
0
www.hero6.com
idontlikeforms said:
I'm just speaking from personal observation. Sometimes the scenario you just explained is what happens. Sometimes what I just explained happens. But the point is that what I just explained happens often enough that it is a serious problem. You scenario here only happens if Portugal is not the leader of the alliance. Sometimes Portugal is allied to Castile and a west African country and then the problem still happens.
Which would only be benin now...which is in an alliance at the start of the game.
 

unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
Jinnai said:
Which would only be benin now...which is in an alliance at the start of the game.
It happens with any country adjecant to a Portuguese owned province. Which could potentially be any of them.
 

unmerged(31425)

Married Man
Jul 2, 2004
2.826
0
Jinnai said:
However portugal must know about them. If it doesn't this won't happen.
If it is discovering them, then something else is the matter.
It explores the adjacent provinces with regular a regular army unit.
 

Summoner

Captain
24 Badges
Feb 24, 2002
309
4
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings Complete
  • Knights of Honor
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris
  • War of the Vikings
  • Cities in Motion
  • Victoria 2
  • Starvoid
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Rome Gold
  • Majesty 2
  • Magicka
  • The Kings Crusade
  • King Arthur II
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Commander: Conquest of the Americas
Complain to Johan then. Regular units can explore an inhabited TI provice from a known land one at any point in the game. You cannot do the same with the normal unit starting out from a ship. *Grumble*
 

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
Further testing

Now tested 5 games incorporating changes from threads 302 & 310.

-No wars between POR and CAS till 1488. ( 4 of 5 games)
-Alliance between POR and Cas usually till 1460.

-Portugal explores down Africa , settles in these places:
Tassaret x 1tp
Nouakchotti x 1tp
Dakar x 6tp
Gambia x 6tp
Casamance x 6tp and the first to colonize regularly
Doual x 1tp
Fernado x 1tp , second to colonize once Casamance is a town.
Kribi x 1 tp

all the above by 1470

-by 1489 , first trader appears in Table.

-by 1505 , Portugeses explorers reach Zanzibar and South America.

These are regular (4 of 5 games) scenarios, 80%, its fine with me.

-Further difficulties, portugal has constant wars in North Africa with Tlemcen and this leads to either algiers going to Portugal or Portugal losing Tangiers.

-Critical issues
1. to make Cas not attack Por, relations need to be improved.

2. Aragon should have Aragon and Gerona goods changed to be wool (historical) this will make Aragon have slightly less money and thus force CAS to eye Aragon as a target instead of POR.

Apart from these I see no problem with Portugal and I do not advise using an AI cheat.
If the dates of colonization are out then, minor changes to my AI files eg warmonger from 25 to 10 could make a difference.
This tests are the foundations required to give Portugal a decent start.
AIs for monarchs after Alphonso V needs to be changed to further carry on testing.

Further note on AIs, we should not be using the default AI from Vanilla or EEP for the AGCEEP, best to create a completly new set. Time is needed for this.
 

Norrefeldt

Porphyrogenitus
Aug 1, 2001
7.433
0
Visit site
Interesting Toio.
I do think we should try to make a submission including whatever tweaks to relations and AI files first, let that be released to make it possible to have people try it out. If that is clearly not shown to work we have to rethink.
I have suggested some relation tweaks here:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3379527&postcount=146
Lowering warmonger further makes good sense, along with the CAS warmonger value. CAS still seem to declare some 4-5 wars in the 15th c, even with warmonger 0.
I'm worried that the AI does not colonise Leone, where El Mina should appear later. Doesn't the gold attract them, is the colonising modifier wrong or should we raise tax value. The AI might look for high taxvalues despite it bing a gold mine?
Are you sure it is better to remove those three events then just changing relations from a -200 hit to something positive? SPA/CAS ought to be pretty thankful for getting/buying it, not hate the Portuguese. Have you seen POR take Gibraltar often?
 

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
Norrefeldt said:
Interesting Toio.
I do think we should try to make a submission including whatever tweaks to relations and AI files first, let that be released to make it possible to have people try it out. If that is clearly not shown to work we have to rethink.
I have suggested some relation tweaks here:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3379527&postcount=146
Lowering warmonger further makes good sense, along with the CAS warmonger value. CAS still seem to declare some 4-5 wars in the 15th c, even with warmonger 0.
I'm worried that the AI does not colonise Leone, where El Mina should appear later. Doesn't the gold attract them, is the colonising modifier wrong or should we raise tax value. The AI might look for high taxvalues despite it bing a gold mine?
Are you sure it is better to remove those three events then just changing relations from a -200 hit to something positive? SPA/CAS ought to be pretty thankful for getting/buying it, not hate the Portuguese. Have you seen POR take Gibraltar often?


Note: My AI changes only reflect 2 monarchs , so extra changes to the rest are required. I basically only tested to 1510, I wanted to see if there was a pattern emerging for good or bad.

POR never sees leone (ie become visible by 1500)

Remove events - definite or change the startdate to 1489. these are not historical anyway.

Only once did portugal take gibraltar and that was with an alliance with Spain/CAS. In the same game was the only war between them, I think it was 1460s.

Fully agree on letting other people test, I have my ideas on what I like to see, others have different ideas (probably better). I just feel we need to take little steps for each nation before we extend our stride.
Note: I have changed aragon and gerona to wool goods.

You have my turk map, I probably went overboard on that one, but you get the idea.

Your testing ideas look good, tell me how they go.
 

Twoflower

Vile treacherous Judas
83 Badges
Nov 7, 2001
3.929
2.299
  • 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:
THe basics of the mods philosophy? Did you miss the part where I pointed out that other AI cheats like this one are already in the game? Are you against them too? If so why not propose their removal by the same logic that you are proposing this proposal shouldn't be added?
Nope. You obviously missed or deliberately forgot the part where I pointed out that these cheats are very different. In fact they are no cheats at all, but just historical events, and even if they were cheats they would be much more acceptable than the cheats presented here. I'll point it out for you again:
1. What is currently in is, strictly speaking, not an AI cheat at all. The Aztec, Inca and Mameluk events happen to the human just as well as the AI. You want your events to be restricted to the AI.
2. What is currently in also cannot be an AI cheat because what these events (especially the Mameluk event, but AFAIK the other too) do is allow something to happen the way it did that cannot happen the way it did in EU2 otherwise. It is outright impossible for the Ottomans, no matter if AI or player, to annex the Mameluks in one war as they did historically due to limitations imposed by the game engine. Events are needed to overcome this, otherwise human and AI Ottomans (and Spain) will have an ahistorical disadvantage. Your events enforce something that already can happen - you will not object to the statement that in at least half of the games Portugal is able to not lose Oporto to Spain, like it did historically. This already puts your events on a much weaker base.
3. The events already in are based on conditions that try to make sure that they won't happen when they make no sense at all (e.g the Ottomans need to control several provinces). Your events will make Castile give Portuguese provinces to Portugal and vassalize Portugal regardless of anything, which gives them something arbitrary.
4. The events already in model historical events, not something ahistorical like yours do.
5. The events already in are needed to make certain things happen - the Ottoman AI absolutely cannot take out the Mameluks in one war -, while yours try to enforce something that is already quite likely to happen.
6. Your cheats restrict the game by "correcting" something that has already happened already in the game, the events already in don't. You obviously have not understood this point when I first made it, hence I'll explain again: your events are directed towards the past (in the game), trying to correct it, the events already in, and any "AI cheats" that would be acceptable to me under certain circumstances, are directed towards the future.
EDIT: Oops, a "redundant" post...
 

unmerged(2456)

Pure Evil Genius
Mar 29, 2001
11.211
0
www.hero6.com
Summoner said:
Complain to Johan then. Regular units can explore an inhabited TI provice from a known land one at any point in the game. You cannot do the same with the normal unit starting out from a ship. *Grumble*
I've already complained about 1 thing to him about a week ago...don't want to seem like a big complainer.
Of course i could become AGCEEP's scapegoat to complain about engine problems we have to him.