EU2 source code released

[MattyG]

sorry but i hve to call you up on this.

No, you don't. No one is forcing you to respond, so please don't pretend that they are. That is the kind of falsity in representation you are always railing against with Paradox. And you are not 'calling me'. That expression means that you are revealing a genuine truth. You are presenting only your opinion. When I described this as junk gaming, I made it clear that this was only my opinion and described only the MP house rules that I had played under. I did not present my opinion or experience as being universal.

if make a poll i am sure that such an argument would not even get 10 percents of the total votes. i used to play a lot of mp( back to it recentlly) and i had YET to run against such COMPLAIN

You do here what you accuse Garbon of: pretending as though your way is the way, and you use as evidence an imaginary poll. I am unconvinced by this flimsy argumentation.

from your statement it sounds that most(if not all) of present/past and future mp ACTUAL players are doing "junk gaming"

Please present some kind of genuine research which shows that most past, present and (laughably) future mp games are rife with players having fake wars to swap provinces.

would really love to "meet" you on the batelfield with such a restriction u UPHOLD(your house rules.) i BET that regradless of WHO would win the wars, the mp game itself would be DEAD within a very short period from start:rofl:

Please explain how this is related to the matter of fake wars for the purpose of exchanging provinces. The MP games I have played in have been very tense, exciting affairs.

mp is A COMMUNITY of "monarchs"( like in real life) and the game REMAINS fun by forming "blocks" and especially BALANCE OF POWER. without that, having backstabbings everywhere, there would be no REASON to actually play eu2 at all. anyone looking for an "rts" will find MUCH BETTER ONES then eu2 will EVER be in such respect...

You are losing me entirely, beregic. This seems to have nothing to do with the issue I raised and seems more a rant about how you peceive and play MP games.

 

[Mats_SX]

Please present some kind of genuine research which shows that most past, present and (laughably) future mp games are rife with players having fake wars to swap provinces.

I can not give you the research that you ask for, but I can promise you that if you post a thread in the MP section of this forum asking "is it common to use fake wars for province swapping?", you will get plenty of "yes" responses. In the Wednesday game, to take an example, there was a fake war Austria-Brandenburg over agreed upon German provinces, there was a fake war Poland-Ottoman Empire over Ruthenian culture provinces, there was a fake war Russia-Poland over a Baltic province, and all this just last session.

Another game I played, Defeat after Deceit, involved at least 2 fake wars per session on an average, all with the purpose of giving land for money, or land for land.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

No, you don't. No one is forcing you to respond, so please don't pretend that they are. That is the kind of falsity in representation you are always railing against with Paradox. And you are not 'calling me'. That expression means that you are revealing a genuine truth. You are presenting only your opinion. When I described this as junk gaming, I made it clear that this was only my opinion and described only the MP house rules that I had played under. I did not present my opinion or experience as being universal.



You do here what you accuse Garbon of: pretending as though your way is the way, and you use as evidence an imaginary poll. I am unconvinced by this flimsy argumentation.



Please present some kind of genuine research which shows that most past, present and (laughably) future mp games are rife with players having fake wars to swap provinces.


Please explain how this is related to the matter of fake wars for the purpose of exchanging provinces. The MP games I have played in have been very tense, exciting affairs.



You are losing me entirely, beregic. This seems to have nothing to do with the issue I raised and seems more a rant about how you peceive and play MP games.

nonsense and you know it
- no idea here what you mean by "you are always railing against with Paradox. "
- you are beeing "intelectually" rude.
- you are trying to deny possible changes that would enhance MP, and when i call you on it, you are REFUSING to do so. using elevated language does not impress me a BIT. you are going "against" me only becouse i disagree with you.

in a short sentence, in MY opinion(and from what i have seen from your recent posts), your mp experience SEEMS as beeing non-existent. standing by your words that provincial swaps(fake wars) are NOT a COMMON thing in mp is laughable in ITSELF

You do here what you accuse Garbon of: pretending as though your way is the way, and you use as evidence an imaginary poll. I am unconvinced by this flimsy argumentation.

WHERE do i USE such a poll? calling for it is not the same thing and YOU KNOW IT.


when "tyrbald" pruposes an enhancement for mp regarding EASIER provincial swap commands, your response is:

Personally, I take issue with this idea. Not because it didn't happen, but because it didn't happen with the frequency that justifies it being readily accessible to all nations in every peace (or Diplomatic) action. It would become thoroughly abused, I think, in ahistorical and very 'gamey' ways, especially in MP.

the reply CLEARLLY attempts to DENY an obvious truth and i was trying to "correct" you by calling FOR a poll. i was not disagreeing with your opinion of HOW the game should be, i was just correcting a mistake in how things ARE in the mp comunity, at general level of course. all this comment of yours , TO ME, seems as an attempt to correct players behaviour along the lines you WANT/or WOULD LIKE to see the manner in wich they "should" behave... what is it to you what COULD become "abused" or not? ( unless you are a participant in the specific situation of course).

PLEASE stop calling for game restrictions like you did regarding diplomacy as well, a few pages back . this thread is about ENHANCING OPTIONS last time i checked and not creating handicaps.
please no more hard feelings; i say that becouse i have respect for your work on your own mod( interregnum) and especially the commandable efforts and your own time SPENT in doing so. i am lookig foward to play a new version of it when it comes out .
and what happened to a possible "interegnum" mp ?????????????????? i would be up for it as i already told you. this is the third time i am actually asking you.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Ok, ok, please...

It is a fact SP and MP have different goals and different playstyles. This is why I suggested options (be able to "ghost" a nation was another specific MP feature).

We can add to the diplomatic actions list (each could cost a diplomat and/or specific interface?):
exchange provinces between players
send money between players
propose NAP between players (same effect as a truce => 5 years for duration, not sure how we could handle a different value without heavy reworking)

"Between players" is the only way I find for no interference with SP.

And I am sure that there are a lot more ideas out there that just needs to be posted. Making a thread in the MP forum might actually be a good idea.

Agreed. This is the best way.

 

[BurningEGO]

Please present some kind of genuine research which shows that most past, present and (laughably) future mp games are rife with players having fake wars to swap provinces.

Honestly MattyG, you dont know what you are speaking about. If you knew, you would refrain from making such statements.

From all the time i wasted on online gaming, i cant remember one game where fake wars didnt happen. And i am speaking of fake wars with the intend of handing over provinces.

As Beregic pointed out, your multiplayer-experience must be close to none, if you really firmly believe in what you said.

 

[MattyG]

Honestly MattyG, you dont know what you are speaking about. If you knew, you would refrain from making such statements.

From all the time i wasted on online gaming, i cant remember one game where fake wars didnt happen. And i am speaking of fake wars with the intend of handing over provinces.

As Beregic pointed out, your multiplayer-experience must be close to none, if you really firmly believe in what you said.

I know exactly what I am talking about and perhaps before you respond again go back and note carefully what it is I actually said.. I wrote only about:

1. My own experience, not someone else's.

2. My own preferences and opinions, which only I have the ability to express acurately, and which cannot be challenged by you or beregic's poor arguments.

I will never refrain from expressing either of the above, whether you agree with me or not. Not sure why you feel so threatened by it all.

What I did NOT do is:

1. Pretend to speak for the MP community.

2. Pretend that I had any evidence to support an assumption about what other people want.

So, really, there is nothing to challenge me on. We clearly don't agree on how an MP game ought to be played, and that's just fine. I dislike intensely when players have fake wars to acheive results that I believe are ahistorical, but I never said once that it wasn't common in MP games. (Go back and reread, if you don't believe me).

 

[BurningEGO]

If you are so confident in your own reality, why even respond to my posting?

Because i am a good samaritan and i like to show people the light. In this case, reality.

And if you think that about 200 sessions of online gaming in 2 years is a poor argument, then i dont know what proof will actually be enough to convince you.

Lastly - Paradox, i believe, focus on apeasing the majority of the players. And since the vast majority - by far - does fake wars to switch provinces, i believe that is more then enough to implement such an option.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

I already proposed a solution and created a thread in MP forum here.

 

[MattyG]

Because i am a good samaritan and i like to show people the light. In this case, reality.

And if you think that about 200 sessions of online gaming in 2 years is a poor argument, then i dont know what proof will actually be enough to convince you.

Lastly - Paradox, i believe, focus on apeasing the majority of the players. And since the vast majority - by far - does fake wars to switch provinces, i believe that is more then enough to implement such an option.

Convince me of what?

You are arguing vociferously to convince of something I have never denied. This is, in logic, referred to as a 'straw man'. Again, go back and actually read what I wrote and if you can find anywhere me stating that the MP community that operates within the fora here don't pursue fake wars to facilitate the swap of provinces, then please post my quote. You won't be able to, because I never denied this. So, you are left frothing at the mouth over absolutely nothing.

Look, I saw a posting that suggested the source code team bring in an aspect that I don't personally agree with, and instead of remaining silent I voiced my personal opnion. If you think shouting me down is going to prevent me from expressing myself, or convince me that I am wrong about the issue of selling provinces, then you are wrong. Actual arguments might convince me, but saying "Oh you are so wrong" over and over again only leaves me thinking that you don't have an argument to actually make, except perhaps that of 'might is right'.

And the quote you selected above is not a denial that the MP community want's the province for cash option or indulges in fake wars, it was an attack on beregic's style of arguing, of presenting his opinion as if it were irrefutable fact, despite deriding this in other people.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Ok, I think we (at least me) understood each point of view.

 

[BurningEGO]

Again, go back and actually read what I wrote and if you can find anywhere me stating that the MP community that operates within the fora here don't pursue fake wars to facilitate the swap of provinces, then please post my quote.

Here is the quote... Dont you remember what you write anymore?

Please present some kind of genuine research which shows that most past, present and (laughably) future mp games are rife with players having fake wars to swap provinces.

And please do me a favour and stop asking for things like "genuine researchs" or "actual arguments" because anyone, using his logic, can conclude that such is impossible. Fake wars are a thing so mundane, that it is impossible to remember how many hapened last month, let alone since EU2 was released to make an actual "research" of it, to make an estimative of how many games finished without one. It is just like asking what you ate one month ago - you know that you ate, but you dont remember the quantity, nor what you actually you ate.

Regardless of what i am done discussing. I got better things to do - if you refuse to see the truth, that is your own problem. I cannot teach a blind man to see if he refuses to do such.

However i will leave a last friendly advice to you - go speak with more experienced people, notably in the EU2 MP forums. All players will undoubtly confirm that fake wars with the intention of switching provinces are a mundane thing. Perhaps then you will see the light that you refuse to see right now.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

And the quote you selected above is not a denial that the MP community want's the province for cash option or indulges in fake wars, it was an attack on beregic's style of arguing, of presenting his opinion as if it were irrefutable fact, despite deriding this in other people.

so you are having issues with my "style"; myself even did not realize it was an "attack", i thought it was an argument at best . regardless, i would not care about "style" much. it is very simple to me, i found a post that trys not only to deny certain "truth" but also creating WRONG PERCEPTIONS. sometimes, while playing, i used to woder why certain events or situation simplly make no sense. this could be generally the case(not one person but opinions based on what "should" be instead of "what" could be. BIG DIFFRENCE between the two).

well, now there is an mp thread, so i should not be running into such "surprises" maybe. hopefully everyone will take the time to write and put some faith into creating the general picture with regards to eu2 gameplay(and not just "theory" and hypotetical arguments)
i have a strong "urge" to quote certain someone, that might or might not be related to issues of "styles" :
"it is the economy stupid" :rofl:
also one of my fav. quotes that certanlly rings true here.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculeed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it
is accepted as self-evident"

 

[Toio]

so you are having issues with my "style"; myself even did not realize it was an "attack", i thought it was an argument at best . regardless, i would not care about "style" much. it is very simple to me, i found a post that trys not only to deny certain "truth" but also creating WRONG PERCEPTIONS. sometimes, while playing, i used to woder why certain events or situation simplly make no sense. this could be generally the case(not one person but opinions based on what "should" be instead of "what" could be. BIG DIFFRENCE between the two).

you wonder why some events do not make sense ?, whats an example.
because you only have this opinion because you know the future from EU2 timeframe (history) but the people at that timeframe did not realise the could or could nots
seems illogical to even make such a statement

 

[unmerged(15247)]

you wonder why some events do not make sense ?, whats an example.
because you only have this opinion because you know the future from EU2 timeframe (history) but the people at that timeframe did not realise the could or could nots
seems illogical to even make such a statement

fair enough i totally agree with you. however the argument was relating to MP where things should be as you say as well from THEORETICAL point of view but they are NOTfrom a practical reality . if one wants to "change" the world, first he must "understand" it for what IT IS. so lets not mix "colors" here , or might end up with an "artistic" painting at wich people look, maybe even admire, and then move on...
for theories i go read BOOKS, and then having that historical information i come HERE(eu2) and try to change that. and i hope that will raise you a question(no need to agree or disagree really)also i hope that makes sense on everyones understanding( i mean perceptions ).

off topic a bit: the way replyes generally evolve (in ANY forums)and distancing themselves from the original topic proves my theory of great uncertainty in human condition. that is why i prefer to have live conversations on messangers(at worst) or person to person, face to face(at best). that takes away the "doubt factor" and especially "style" aspects
to be self-crtical, it seems i am doing just that right now :rofl:

 

[Taylor]

I have a few suggestions that would be handy in sp (dunno about mp).

When moving armies around, I very often try to avoid movement attrition, or, in case I'm attacking a province, I try to arrive on the 1st in a month.

It would be convenient for these purposes to have an arrival date displayed for a moving army. Even better would be an option to be able to tell an army how to move, i.e. "arrive asap" or "arrive asap, avoiding movement attrition" or "arrive asap but do arrive on the 1st of the month". These options would make espessially moving multiple provinces less tedious.

Maybe also a tick box to "don't attack until morale is full". So that for example you could have an army that will arrive asap, on the first of a month, as soon as his morale is at maximum.

Another thing: to be able to give a routed army an order where to move after his retreat. Would also make moving less tedious.

And lastly, being able to give the order to keep on attacking rebels in a certain province. Because it happens quite often that you lose a battle against rebels over and over again, and you have to keep on trying, however each time you lose, you have to wait till you army's morale is full again, and in the meantime you have other things to do (exploring, trading, colonizing, maybe waging war), so that there is the danger that you forget about the rebels and they burn your manufactory and stuff :wacko:... To be able to automate this rebel bashing would be awesome.

 

[unmerged(84806)]

I agree about the movement attrition. As it works now, it doesn't make much sense. Why not remove the whole thing? Or at least make moving within a month cause attrition as well.

And about burning manufactories: Nothing is worse when playing as a minor and having spent years accumulating enough money to buy a manufactory, only to see it be burned to the ground by some random rebels. It also causes alot of headache when I want a neighbouring province with a manufactory, but my army burns it down when sieging. It should be possible to control this a bit more. For example, when capturing a province, a option like "Burn Manufactory" (just like "Attack Natives") could be selected. It could be a bit gamey though, especially in MP I guess...

As for rebels burning manufactories, I would like to see it removed.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

I agree about the movement attrition. As it works now, it doesn't make much sense. Why not remove the whole thing? Or at least make moving within a month cause attrition as well.

I personally always found silly to calculate movements because of the first of the month... Not to mention exploit for navies (and not because of 100). But maybe not easy to implement. Paradox made a choice and it was maybe the "less worst" for technical reason.

About burned factories, this is really annoying because bad luck is involved and it decreases value of a province a player would like to conquer (for example) but it is fact it happened and it was not always controlled as the result of war (remember Ancient Library of Alexandria...). But burning infrastructures in a province could be an option with impact to be discussed for the country that decides it.

 

[Taylor]

Well attrition could easily be calculated per day I think, it won't take that much cpu (I think there are usually far less than, let's say, 50 armies in the world suffering attrition, so the number of extra calculations is very limited). If that were to be implemented, arriving 1st of the month, or avoiding movement attrition will indeed become silly obsolete concepts.

However displaying an arrival date & being able to give orders to routed armies would still be useful, right?

And what about an automated rebel bashing mission for armies?

By the way I think rebels burning manu's is just part of the game, and in my opinion should stay the way it is. And about players burning enemy manufactories: I think there should be a severe bb penalty in doing so (otherwise it would become to gamey, like olav mentioned).

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Problem is not with armies really suffering attrition. If it is checked every day, we have to check all armies anyway and increase time devoted to this check 30 times it takes currently. It could be a problem for general performance of the game.

 

[Toio]

i like the attrition as it is, makes me plan the movements instead of playing "lazy".

One thing I hate is lack of army attrition when you have a state that is money poor. I think there should be a % attrition per month for lack of payment to troops.
so as an example , if you had 50000 men and you ran out of money, then 5% of 50000 will disappear until treasury is replenished.

I prefer this method than the treasury interest rate system