EU2 source code released

[Garbon]

I think it is more likely that you remember these things when they happen than that they always happen. "Sometimes..." and "might..." sound to me like things are working properly. In other words: It happens. Deal with it.

Indeed.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

I think it is more likely that you remember these things when they happen than that they always happen. "Sometimes..." and "might..." sound to me like things are working properly. In other words: It happens. Deal with it.

i guess you did not understand me; i am stating clear facts that are anything but random;

and no i am not a young kid, ( i am over 30), that i do not know the diffrence between an impression and a fact ; please read again what my annoyance exactlly is about . i appologize if language barriers, english not my first but not the last either :rofl:

or you can simply ignore the above points and we all do it our own ways , like editing and "dealing" with problems effectively ; only if i would know how to modify the "codes". damm, you guys witholding information from your "fan base"

oh, and i love using "smiles" a LOT

 

[Garbon]

i guess you did not understand me; i am stating clear facts that are anything but random;

and no i am not a young kid, ( i am over 30), that i do not know the diffrence between an impression and a fact ; please read again what my annoyance exactlly is about . i appologize if language barriers, english not my first but not the last either :rofl:

What data do you have to show that these are "facts?"

 

[unmerged(15247)]

What data do you have to show that these are "facts?"

err....thousends and thousands of games? my POINT is to show that there are many algorithms running that only give an impression that the player is in control while he is not YOU should come clean and tell us the FACTS

 

[Garbon]

err....thousends and thousands of games? my POINT is to show that there are many algorithms running that only give an impression that the player is in control while he is not YOU should come clean and tell us the FACTS

The reason I ask is based on what I said elsewhere. It's basic psychology that people often remember a set of occurrences that matches with how they think things are...but then often minimize occurrences that don't fit those views. Thus when making claims, it's often good to have some sort of data to base that on. A quick example would a popular claim at one point that the inclusion of the Ghazi state was ruinous for the Ottoman Empire. However, after a set of hands-off tests were conducted, it was found that such claims had been vastly overstated.

That said, I think it has been floating on the forum for years that eu2's events aren't always so random as the engine gets "stuck" on certain events. I think it has been said that the random seed generator is re-activated upon a reload, so vis-a-vis the event problem, reload on such occurrences. We have enough random events that activate at each slider setting that, that really shouldn't be the cause of your problem (I don't think).

And for the record, I don't think you have said anything childish.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

The reason I ask is based on what I said elsewhere. It's basic psychology that people often remember a set of occurrences that matches with how they think things are...but then often minimize occurrences that don't fit those views. Thus when making claims, it's often good to have some sort of data to base that on. A quick example would a popular claim at one point that the inclusion of the Ghazi state was ruinous for the Ottoman Empire. However, after a set of hands-off tests were conducted, it was found that such claims had been vastly overstated.

That said, I think it has been floating on the forum for years that eu2's events aren't always so random as the engine gets "stuck" on certain events. I think it has been said that the random seed generator is re-activated upon a reload, so vis-a-vis the event problem, reload on such occurrences. We have enough random events that activate at each slider setting that, that really shouldn't be the cause of your problem (I don't think).

(ghazi state actually HELPS ottos becouse they can "focus " better, the only people i can see as would be disagree with that are those that want to start big and feel more powerfull , greedy bast.. :rofl: )

"it has been said" does not come as a fact now, does it? sounds more like "sometimes" or "most of the time" ,

on a very serious note , NOW that you have the source codes you could give at least a HINT what is reality and what is fantasy . many people do not realize the psichology of eu2 and sometimes i feel like a "nerd" playing it . the catch is that the game is suerlly design to catch the player's ego and ambition him to "resolve" an equation that has no answer( since the game engine does that already without the player's input). if you look CAREFULLY at many aspects WHILE playing, whatever you gain "here" you loose "there". and i am not talking about income levels for example , wich by the way are miss-represented to start with. applying logic on TOP of the engine's logic creates a "catch-22" situation where there is no POINT to "deal" with . the worst part is when some people are looking for even more "balance" to an already more then balanced game.

let me know if the above makes sense figurativelly if can not say it directly

 

[unmerged(15247)]

oh and in the last version i keep getting "capital attraction" a lot, wayyy more then before

 

[MichaelM]

"it has been said" does not come as a fact now, does it? sounds more like "sometimes" or "most of the time"

No, it has never been proven, but I believe that some reputable players (= people who have written FAQs) have said this. I don't remember any names, though.

on a very serious note , NOW that you have the source codes you could give at least a HINT what is reality and what is fantasy .

First, Garbon doesn't have the code. Second, those of us that do had to sign a non-disclosure agreement. I specifically asked if it was permissible to answer any long-standing questions (like why rebels defect where they do); Johan said no. That is why I am not quantifying anything (although I haven't looked at the random event engine yet anyway).

 

[Garbon]

"it has been said" does not come as a fact now, does it? sounds more like "sometimes" or "most of the time" ,

on a very serious note , NOW that you have the source codes you could give at least a HINT what is reality and what is fantasy .

I haven't looked at the source code which is why I feel comfortable talking about what has been floated on the forum.

Also, you haven't really said anything to my argument about biased impressions.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

No, it has never been proven, but I believe that some reputable players (= people who have written FAQs) have said this. I don't remember any names, though.

First, Garbon doesn't have the code. Second, those of us that do had to sign a non-disclosure agreement. I specifically asked if it was permissible to answer any long-standing questions (like why rebels defect where they do); Johan said no. That is why I am not quantifying anything (although I haven't looked at the random event engine yet anyway).

thanks! i got it exactly.(makes sense since most paradox games use the very same logarithm, just adding "flavours" basicaly).

and where "reputable" comes in!? everyone can make observations no matter how many FAQs been written and they remain as observations unless the "codes" are known.

again, thanks. is just like i suspected

 

[unmerged(15247)]

I haven't looked at the source code which is why I feel comfortable talking about what has been floated on the forum.

Also, you haven't really said anything to my argument about biased impressions.

first i did not know it was an argument
secondly would it make a diffrence?
and thirdly , the biased will likely remain?

 

[Garbon]

first i did not know it was an argument
secondly would it make a diffrence?
and thirdly , the biased will likely remain?

I think it would make a difference. If you can say in the last 10 games I saw X fire Y times in timespan of Z years, you have compelling evidence that there is a problem. When you tell me that you see some events fire a lot and then provide your assumed explanation, you haven't really given me enough support for what you're saying. A data set is most helpful in an attempt to eliminate bias. Scientific method and what not.

 

[BurningEGO]

from this observation and a few more i have a feeling that i will be sticking with the present eu2 engine

A bit harsh, but i have to agree a bit with it. I believe things that make EU2, actually EU2, like DAing, should remain as they are. They, should, however, be, modable.

Also is there somewhere a complete list of what is going to be implemented in this new "expansion"? There are a few ideas i would like to give, but i dont know if they were already given and i know that for you guys it might be annoying to hear the same suggestion over and over again.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

so i find out i have even more time, not necesarly a good thing

back to the batellfield; i wanted to do china but seeing 40inflation to start with and knowing what rr levels to expect later on makes it pointless( i say that becouse this is a clear example where the game has been "balanced" to the point of making irrelevant any "strategy" )

-maybe venice? new events but more of the same
-did shongay(boring after 1600 or so), timuruds, ethiopia and uzbeks already ( on beta 6 and from 1419 to 1800). on previous mataram, cambodia and delhi.
-maybe i should try europe? the thing is that the outcomes here depends too much on forced triggers and seeing austri conquering germany only to release vassals after creates a situation with NO WARS after 1600's...(since they remain vassal, eventualy getting re-annex only to be AGAIN release after ) that kills the game for me.
- wish you would have the "najf" scenario included with 30 or so north american native , pagan nations...by 1500's when i would discover them provinces(tax and population) are at least slightly diffrent from a game to another, and makes "conquering" them more intreasting( the order in wich to do it, what for, etc...do not forget force conversions .
- maybe denemark? this one is on top of my list for power teching possibilities...start war right away with all minor germans and peace them all only when get trade 3 and make 5 or 6 manufactories AT ONCE when doing so around 145's ).never annex sweeden and always release norway.expand south and stay catholic.
-maybe poland?????????? always a favourite becouse it has more options and paths then others. i think is the european nation i played most to date after ottos, every game seems diffrent then the other. but that's the problem i need variety.
-switzerland? errr...no, pointless in sp but very fun in mp; its monarch system should be applied to all nations as the God(player) would have real choices in influencing who gets the throne. really like this nation but in sp it involves a lot of waiting mostlly becouse its HUGE recruitment costs/income. at least the first 100 years or so
-german minors; did them pretty much all; except for initial choices all end up with the same result and size since monarchs diplomat stats decrease about very same amount off bb on a complete GC.
-france too easy, it's a given
-burgundy was last european i played a few betas ago, nice touch with its possibility to become a german or a dutch ( the spanish line i simplly do not get HOW is possible to meet the rquierments. really o ). what happened to the french "line!?
-spain; yuckssssssssss i generally hate mass colonization. B.O.R.I.N.G.( in mp is somehow less so). also too easy.
-muscovy very fun, played it a lot of times and until 1500's very chalanging( as able to atain a certain size with 0 inflation AND good tech). but when the huge siberia lays open , again B.O.R.I.N.G
- england, too easy great events , if every nation would have her VARIETY in choices and event structures +the civil wars( how come i NEVER been able to trigger cornwall's take over and charles the2nd execution!?)
-scotland, many cool events but pointless in the end when coming to game play and possibility issues...mostlly due to its low manpower and "standard" english response(at war).
- minors like bosnia, albania, etc...not in the mood, do not feel like "proving" anything especialy to myself since i already know everything :rofl:
-lithuania would be great choice but my last game with her got annoyed with bugs regarding teutonic's event
- kara (the black sheep?)...errr...lots of talk about BECOMING persi...but HOW? there is no such event in its file!? except for persi revolting ONLY. yet a lot of talk that it can FORM persia...how??? call me ignorant, but how is that possible???
- golden horde; i used to like it but with the latest batch of events forcing to choose kazan or crimea bit not both =waste of time, not my cup of tea for any designer to script me "ultimatums" events .even if it is historical should still have some choice for game play value.
-mamluks!? great cool and dandy at start and first 100 years ...but coming 1520's+ and taking over ottos(huge bb) , then WHAT NEXT?
-sweeden, i just dislike its position and high recruitment costs. GREAT for mp play do!
- back to HRE force release vassals....it might look "cool" and give more realistic trade system. BUT it kills the game play for other reasons such as much LESS OR NO WARS(ai wars at least), same tech across the board and nevertheless unexplained; as why would anyone struggle to "incorporate, get 6 bb each time if force annex, only to "willingly" release it after. trying to find a real explanation other then "balance" reasons but i can not do so. anyway only i is stupid enough to obey the "codes" forced upon her :rofl:
-marocco? excelent nation and especialy its position to play with, but there are many missing llinks between its events such actually getting cores on sudan@co...
-telcemen and tunisia, i think i have not tried them in ages, but the "break apart" forced options not my cup of tea at all no matter what argument.

aha--i found it! BYZHANTUM AGAIN; of course with the special mode "byzanthum triuphant" files LOTS of options and paths
wish me good luck!

 

[Garbon]

- kara (the black sheep?)...errr...lots of talk about BECOMING persi...but HOW? there is no such event in its file!? except for persi revolting ONLY. yet a lot of talk that it can FORM persia...how??? call me ignorant, but how is that possible???

What version of the mod are you playing? Since 1.51, there has been a 20% chance for Kara Koyunlu to become the Safavids. Since 1.54, the Kara Koyunlu player is guaranteed to become the Safavids if they take out the Ak Koyunlu before Jahan Shah historically died (about 1467ish).

Also, I'm not sure that this is quite the right thread to give your feedback about why you don't play various nations.

 

[Garbon]

- back to HRE force release vassals....it might look "cool" and give more realistic trade system. BUT it kills the game play for other reasons such as much LESS OR NO WARS(ai wars at least), same tech across the board and nevertheless unexplained; as why would anyone struggle to "incorporate, get 6 bb each time if force annex, only to "willingly" release it after. trying to find a real explanation other then "balance" reasons but i can not do so. anyway only i is stupid enough to obey the "codes" forced upon her :rofl:

This would be an easy claim of yours to counter. In general, the AI wars less and less as the date advances. Thus even if we didn't have these events, you'd see wars decreasing. Additionally, you aren't going to see more wars if the HRE kept on to all provinces it annexed as by the very fact of those countries not existing, they couldn't war with the HRE.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

I think it would make a difference. If you can say in the last 10 games I saw X fire Y times in timespan of Z years, you have compelling evidence that there is a problem. When you tell me that you see some events fire a lot and then provide your assumed explanation, you haven't really given me enough support for what you're saying. A data set is most helpful in an attempt to eliminate bias. Scientific method and what not.

dear Gabron...u see, i do not "collect" info since i do not intend to "prove" anything. BUT OVERTIME (going above and beyond " 10 games") one can easily take NOTE of certain behaviour that becomes "classic".

i gave you lots of support; i repeat even if i should not since iys written above; i get the merchant event (grr forgat the name but the one with 3 choices, is only one) about 6 times within 10 years for at least 4 games with recent beta starting 1419 ending 1800 or at least 1700;s in some cases ( like shongay wich has no events later on and boring after taking control over its area). i generally get an alternate of "cities demand old rights", the merchant one, and the 2 diffrent "unhapiness of the peasents". also the one that has choice of -500 infra or -50+-1serfdom. as well LOTS os "capital attraction" as i never used to get in older versions.

with ethiopia, got about 5 conversions too( wich is a lot ), i mean the conversion event , not the one "by the sword" that would make 8-9 total at least. but with ethiopia i am not surprised; since i ever play eu2 ethiopia seems to have the most conversion events triggering for her; never figured it out why or "what could make that so".

also i used to get lots of "refformation of the biocracy" with -2000 cash and -3 stability or loss of tax; but it seems that got FIXED in last beta, only 1-3 per game ( late game only since it has a start date right?).

now please note; as i said ABOVE(another post), i play with sliders generally to the right all, except inno if i need some missionaries or some colonists eventually. or at least that is how my slider movement intentiones goes about with or without random event's help ( only with mataram i play full naval, no land for explorer bonus and better pirates fighting and better trade).

ah and before i forget; the "trecerous noble arrested " used to trigger a lot before, a bit lees in beta 6 but still a lot in LATE GAME , after 1600;( with the previous beta used to be the most common random event for me)

 

[unmerged(15247)]

What version of the mod are you playing? Since 1.51, there has been a 20% chance for Kara Koyunlu to become the Safavids. Since 1.54, the Kara Koyunlu player is guaranteed to become the Safavids if they take out the Ak Koyunlu before Jahan Shah historically died (about 1467ish).

Also, I'm not sure that this is quite the right thread to give your feedback about why you don't play various nations.

now that is an explanation; is it written ANYWHERE else then right here and now?
ok so i have to try them, and better be like you say ; "Ak Koyunlu" DEAD before 1467! (you sure?).i will look when this guy dies.i never knew this at all!

 

[Garbon]

now that is an explanation; is it written ANYWHERE else then right here and now?
ok so i have to try them, and better be like you say ; "Ak Koyunlu" DEAD before 1467! (you sure?).i will look when this guy dies.i never knew this at all!

No, but then most country changes aren't documented.

Jahan Shah (leader of Kara Koyunlu) dies on November 12, 1467, so unless the game has drawn that 1 in 5 chance of letting him live, you need to have eliminated the Ak Koyunlu by that date in order to become the Safavids.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

This would be an easy claim of yours to counter. In general, the AI wars less and less as the date advances. Thus even if we didn't have these events, you'd see wars decreasing. Additionally, you aren't going to see more wars if the HRE kept on to all provinces it annexed as by the very fact of those countries not existing, they couldn't war with the HRE.

WHY do you think people make points(claims) that NEED your countering!? and why has to be a "claim of mine"!?!!??!?!?!?!?!?! i guess you guys realy need a "survey" or "polls" or otherwise all thise resumes to various types of ego related problems...

u see i do not argue, i STATE, i am not looking for APPRECIATION, i simplly state what i SEE or THINK is wrong.u have a choice to interpret it as you wish, feel like or want to, no problem. does not make me feel better or worse if anyone agrees with me other then OBSERVE if want to( there will always be 2 sides to the equation).

and i should not get triggered into even this type "argument" , but hey i need to "correct" you on the approach u use to interpret my post(s).

the only times i trully care for arguments are those that involve monetarry compensations .otherwise is just a discussion at best