Beta of 5.1 - 17th May 2011 - Discussion Thread

[Johan]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?537264-Beta-of-5.1-17th-May-2011 for the files.

 

[EmiliuS]

Woohoo! Thank u Johan and the team

 

[D3v1l89]

- Increased the time it takes for horde to conquer non-core territory.

How long?

 

[unmerged(157031)]

Ah, excellent! I'll be trying this out today!

Edit: Can anybody confirm that the checksum is DCOA?

 

[User29]

oh Johan. You and the other Dev's never cease to amaze me on how fast you react to these sorts of things. You are the worlds ideal Dev team(if only you didn't have to sleep.)

 

[TAMBOURINESNAKE]

Doesn't bi-yearly mean twice a year? ;]

 

[Sandmann]

What does this mean?;

"- Changed yearly pulse to bi-yearly, reducing frequency by half."

By the way I hope 5.1 patch gets out soon, would be fun to have achievements working

 

[Duskey]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?537264-Beta-of-5.1-17th-May-2011 for the files.

Thanks. Other than working on balancing issues and this new event thingy, do you plan to work on more bug fixes for patch 5.1?

- Increased the time it takes for horde to conquer non-core territory.

How long?

It depends now, see the patch notes:
- Techgroup affects how quickly a province falls to horde building destruction.

Ah, excellent! I'll be trying this out today!

Edit: Can anybody confirm that the checksum is DCOA?

I'm getting DCOA too.

Doesn't bi-yearly mean twice a year? ;]

No.

What does this mean?;

"- Changed yearly pulse to bi-yearly, reducing frequency by half."
<snip>

Means that instead of getting an event every year (like in 10th May beta patch), you now get one every two years.

 

[Gauge]

Ah, excellent! I'll be trying this out today!

Edit: Can anybody confirm that the checksum is DCOA?

I can confirm it's that for me. Whether it's right or not I can't say

 

[thebigboss-89]

looks pretty sweet but what's this supposed to mean?

- Create general/admiral/explorer/conquistador now picks a female name if the level is <0 in an event effect.

 

[Gauge]

looks pretty sweet but what's this supposed to mean?

I was curious about this myself. Perhaps it has some historical significance.

 

[safferli]

"- Changed yearly pulse to bi-yearly, reducing frequency by half."

I don't know if this is, but would it be possible to put the pulse into defines.txt? Even 1 event/2 years seems quite a lot to me. I'd like to see more of a 1/5 years, or even 1/10 years.

 

[Duskey]

It might just be me who's a bit thick, but what's the gain of this yearly/bi-yearly event thing over the old MTTH?

 

[TAMBOURINESNAKE]

No.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biyearly

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biannual

Even Oxford doesn't know:

"appearing or taking place every two years or twice a year."

 

[ForzaA]

looks pretty sweet but what's this supposed to mean?

That if you have an event that would create a general, admiral, etc. it will create one with a female name ("Isabel Columbus") if the quality of generation is less than 0 (you can define to gain a general with 10 tradition, 50, 100.. And now presumably also -10 tradition, -50, -100.. Giving you the same quality, but female)

 

[thebigboss-89]

That if you have an event that would create a general, admiral, etc. it will create one with a female name ("Isabel Columbus") if the quality of generation is less than 0 (you can define to gain a general with 10 tradition, 50, 100.. And now presumably also -10 tradition, -50, -100.. Giving you the same quality, but female)

not sure how to take it, either it's saying that women inherently incapable of being general/explorer etc. (since it get's represented on a minus scale), which is sexist, or that one can now hire female generals just as you can hire male, which is unhistorical... :/

 

[ForzaA]

not sure how to take it, either it's saying that women inherently incapable of being general/explorer etc. (since it get's represented on a minus scale), which is sexist, or that one can now hire female generals just as you can hire male, which is unhistorical... :/

It's saying you can - and it's been +/- for other generators as well (e.g. the chances of getting queens) ; I think it's an elegant solution to allow *defining* whether male or female, without a whole new variable.

And you can't hire them *as such*, only if there's a specific event that is *written* so as to generate one.

 

[unmerged(157031)]

That if you have an event that would create a general, admiral, etc. it will create one with a female name ("Isabel Columbus") if the quality of generation is less than 0 (you can define to gain a general with 10 tradition, 50, 100.. And now presumably also -10 tradition, -50, -100.. Giving you the same quality, but female)

I'm not sure if Paradox just went "there" (which would be hilarious ), or if we're just misunderstanding; care to clear things up for us, Johan?

 

[ThePutty]

It's not sexist, it's historical. Women weren't admirals or generals, and there's very rarely times when they were.

 

[safferli]

No sexism debate here.

Generating them at "negative" numbers is just a computational crutch, they'll be just as good as a male general (-50 = 50, for example).