Not really necessary as there is the bankruptcy series of events to punish those who dip too deeply into non-existent treasuries.Solmyr said:
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
MrT said:
I know, but they don't fire for the AI, and I'm mainly concerned with not letting the AI rulers fall too deep into debt.
Then don't allow the AI to have more courtiers...Solmyr said:I know, but they don't fire for the AI, and I'm mainly concerned with not letting the AI rulers fall too deep into debt.
Personnaly I restrict all my courtiers events to the player.
They add RPG flavour in the game, something the AI is completely unaware of...
Cat
Wouldn't that give the player an unfair advantage? The AI needs male courtiers as much as anyone, right now they keep appointing every female relative they have as countesses.
Instead, why not use the new ai_chance modifier ability to tech the ai when to accept the courtier and when to decline him/her?Solmyr said:
Just apply some modifiers to the ai_chance of taking the courtier based on whether it already has one appointed (you can check this using csc condition) and whether it can afford it (you can't use scale in a condition, so you'd have to make an educated guess as to the costs, or do a set of nested sclaed tests based on what level ruler the character is). It would be slightly complex to script but worthwhile in the long run.
Note: It's likely that Cat Lord and I will help you with these events since we have been discussing exactly this as an addition to 1.04. Perhaps if we all put our heads together in this thread you'll find them incorporated directly from here into 1.04.
Sounds good. I'll try to come up with ai_chance modifiers for the above, meanwhile take a look and see if anything could be improved.
I'll try to come up with ai_chance modifiers for the above, meanwhile take a look and see if anything could be improved.
My thoughts...
Kill the gold check on the triggers. Instead, build into the event effects the ability for a player to decide whether going deeper into depbt is worth the risk, and then "teach" the AI (using ai_chace) what to do when presented with the event.
Invert your associated stats modifiers and base them on realm values. Example: have a steward be more likely to offer his services if the realm stewarship value sucks big time, rather than less likely. This can be done using csc conditions.
Include a modifier on either monarch (direct check) or realm (csc check) diplomacy values in non-chancellor courtier events. The better the diplomacy, the more likely it might be for someone to step up.
Increase the mtth values to make this happen less often, but then include a modifier to make it considerably more likely if the realm doesn't have an officer occupying that particular court position. Example: shift to something like a base chance (after other likely modifiers) of the event firing every 25-50 years, but drop this to 2.5-5 years by including a 0.1 modifier if the position is vacant. We don't want to (a) flood the courts with unncessary characters or (b) place an undue load on the CPU but we do want to help out situations where a court is empty. This would go a long way to accomplishing this without giving the player too great an ability to mismanage his realm and get away with it by having the event system bail him out all the time.
I wonder whether having to be bailed out by a wandering courtier mightn't also be worth a prestige hit - or maybe just the possibility of one?
If I think of something else I'll let you know.
Kill the gold check on the triggers. Instead, build into the event effects the ability for a player to decide whether going deeper into depbt is worth the risk, and then "teach" the AI (using ai_chace) what to do when presented with the event.
Invert your associated stats modifiers and base them on realm values. Example: have a steward be more likely to offer his services if the realm stewarship value sucks big time, rather than less likely. This can be done using csc conditions.
Include a modifier on either monarch (direct check) or realm (csc check) diplomacy values in non-chancellor courtier events. The better the diplomacy, the more likely it might be for someone to step up.
Increase the mtth values to make this happen less often, but then include a modifier to make it considerably more likely if the realm doesn't have an officer occupying that particular court position. Example: shift to something like a base chance (after other likely modifiers) of the event firing every 25-50 years, but drop this to 2.5-5 years by including a 0.1 modifier if the position is vacant. We don't want to (a) flood the courts with unncessary characters or (b) place an undue load on the CPU but we do want to help out situations where a court is empty. This would go a long way to accomplishing this without giving the player too great an ability to mismanage his realm and get away with it by having the event system bail him out all the time.
I wonder whether having to be bailed out by a wandering courtier mightn't also be worth a prestige hit - or maybe just the possibility of one?
If I think of something else I'll let you know.
Would this:
Be the proper way to add a MTTH modifier for having no steward currently appointed?
Just checking that I got this right.
Code:
modifier = {
condition = {
type = any_courtier
condition = { type = not value = { type = steward } }
}
factor = 0.1
}Be the proper way to add a MTTH modifier for having no steward currently appointed?
Just checking that I got this right.
Also, does the AI ever appoint diocese bishops? It doesn't seem to, from what I've seen. If so it could present a problem for the priest-hiring event.
Probably best to use negating csc steward check instead.Solmyr said:Would this:
Code:modifier = { condition = { type = any_courtier condition = { type = not value = { type = steward } } } factor = 0.1 }
Be the proper way to add a MTTH modifier for having no steward currently appointed?
Just checking that I got this right.
Code:
modifier = {
condition = {
type = not
value = {
type = steward_csc
condition = { type = stewardship value = 0 }
}
}
factor = 0.1
}Good question. I'm pretty sure I've seen the AI appoint bishops during betatesting for 1.03 but I haven't specifically looked for it so I guess that would be something that would require testing once the event has been scripted. Just watch a court where there isn't a bishop, wait for one to appear through event, and then see if the AI appoints him. Part of the joy of betatesting is doing exactly things like this when you're not sure...Solmyr said:
Ok, here's the latest version:
(see below for latest version)
Added checks for presence of appropriate official, ai_chance modifiers to make hiring more likely if said official is either not present or has a low stat value (here's to hoping that the AI will notice the new courtier with a higher value and reappoint him). Also made hiring more likely if the realm stat value is low, and less likely if it is already high.
Oh, and stewards are now more likely to be hired if efficiency is below 100%, marshals if at war, and chancellors if the ruler has vassals.
(see below for latest version)
Added checks for presence of appropriate official, ai_chance modifiers to make hiring more likely if said official is either not present or has a low stat value (here's to hoping that the AI will notice the new courtier with a higher value and reappoint him). Also made hiring more likely if the realm stat value is low, and less likely if it is already high.
Oh, and stewards are now more likely to be hired if efficiency is below 100%, marshals if at war, and chancellors if the ruler has vassals.
Last edited:
Looking better.
A couple more points...
A couple more points...
- I still consider a base mtth of 20 years to be too short.
- Your ai-chance modifiers are looking at the ruler's stats and I think that probably basing a high chance of hiring the courtier if the ruler is less than a 7 is excessive. I would either test the realm value or the current officer's value.
- I would like to see realm value for the related stat have an impact on the mtth more than on the ai_chance...for instance crap realm stat increases likelihood, good stats should decrease the likelihood, and great stats should almost negate it. Suggested modifiers for related realm stat values:
- 0-3 @ 0.5
- 4-7 @ 0.8
- 8-10 @ 0.9
- 17-20 @1.25
- 21+ @5
- I would like to see ruler or realm diplomacy play a role in whether someone happens along to offer his services. Perhpas realm dip 15-20 @ 0.9 and 21+ @ 0.75 (except in chancellor event).
- I'm not sure that I'd put those modifiers in there for a ruler having a related education type. Or at least from a POV of something that would make it into an official release version, I would probably yank them.
Note: if you have IRC then I'd be happy to take some time out and discuss these with you (or for that matter any subject). Just let me know and I'll create a channel for it. If you don't have IRC and would like to, you can d/l free clienet software from one of the sites listed here.
Edit: note that I'll be afk for the next hour or so, but after that I'll be available for a few hours.
Edit: note that I'll be afk for the next hour or so, but after that I'll be available for a few hours.
MrT said:
Mainly it's because I like having plenty of interesting courtiers for my RP.
In 1.02 I had it at 5 years and that still wasn't enough for me. With 20 years MTTH, playing as a one-province count for 30 years, I still got only 5 courtiers, 3 of those priests because the count had some priestly virtues, and 1 a marshal applicant because I had none at the time. Feel free to up it in the official version though. I'll just edit it back down in mine. How do you differentiate between a ruler's value and a realm value?
Well, even rulers with great stats sometimes need courtiers to make into vassals (which is also something that these events are supposed to help with).
Will add that.
The trait-based modifiers are mainly there because I like having traits influence what happens to the characters, RP-wise. The education traits might not be entirely appropriate here though. Although it's arguable that someone with ecclesiastical education (like a bishop) should attract more priests to his service.
Btw, I don't use IRC, but I have ICQ and AIM if you want to contact me on those.
Via csc selection. You can switch to a province-type condition and then chack the stat (which tests against the realm value) or use a character-type condition to test the monarch's stats.Solmyr said:
True, but they're less likely to be on the hunt for them. Ideally this event would function (in an official release version) as a means to shore up a partially vacant and struggling court, not as a means to generate nice courtiers for the player to dole out turf to.
The thing to keep in mind (from an official release POV) is that most events are intended to have one of two basic functions: either to present a challenge a player to keep him/her interested in playing, or to reward a player for good play. If an event makes it too easy for a player to win through poor court management (or poor okay of some other game aspect) then the game loses its challenge and the player ultimetely becomes disinterested - as witnessed by the feedback to the weak AI of 1.02 and earlier. However we do recognise that recent changes to the rules will result in situations where it may be very difficult for a player to survive because the court migration changes aren't happening quickly enough.
We will almost certainly tweak migration routines further, but this sort of event set can be incorporated to act as a bit of a safety net - but it shouldn't be a 100% guaranteed safety net. It should still be possible (and in many cases desireable) for the player to have to seriously struggle to contend with his court's survival. If he has gobbled up vast territory, he should have trouble managing his realm and finding enough suitable people to appoint as his vassals. If we use events to generate the necessary nice courtiers then we undermine the challenge and undo some of the progress we've made in providing the public with a game that's fun and interesting to play.
Of course with the event files being open source and easily moddable, a player who wishes to may make life easier for himself by adding favourable events, removing detrimental ones, or tweaking values/modifiers in order to increase or decrease the challenge in whatever way he wishes...thus the principle goal in "official" event scripting may be rather different from the goal of modder event scripting at times (which is perfectly okay for both "sides"
).I'd guessed as much. I'll have to mull that one over.
I use ICQ *very* infrequently but am on IRC about 90% of the day since the vast majority of communication between Paradox and the betas - and between betas - happens over IRC. Just drop me a PM if yuo'd like a "face to face" to discuss anything and I'll get in touch with you via ICQ.
Cheers!
I understand your reasoning for the official POV and I'm okay with that. I just originally made these events to counteract the stupid country cousins in 1.02; I *like* large courts, as long as they are filled with interesting people. But like I said, feel free to tinker with values for the official version.
I'll incorporate some of your newest suggestions and post an updated version later tonight.
I just originally made these events to counteract the stupid country cousins in 1.02; I *like* large courts, as long as they are filled with interesting people. But like I said, feel free to tinker with values for the official version.I'll incorporate some of your newest suggestions and post an updated version later tonight.
Sounds good, and I understand your reasoning/motiviation too.Solmyr said:I understand your reasoning for the official POV and I'm okay with that.
I'll incorporate some of your newest suggestions and post an updated version later tonight.
Btw, do you know if there's any chance Paradox might change these event effects so they can create women too (at least in the case of chancellors/stewards/spymasters)?
Also, it seems that certain types of courtiers only get their two starting traits from the same specific pairs: spymasters and chancellors always get deceitful/honest and trusting/suspicious, marshals always get valorous/coward and wise/reckless, stewards always get just/arbitrary and generous/selfish, and chaplains always get zealous/sceptical and chaste/lustful (fun if you get a sceptical lustful bishop). Would be nice to have a bit more variety there, e.g. a chaste marshal or a vengeful spymaster.
Also, it seems that certain types of courtiers only get their two starting traits from the same specific pairs: spymasters and chancellors always get deceitful/honest and trusting/suspicious, marshals always get valorous/coward and wise/reckless, stewards always get just/arbitrary and generous/selfish, and chaplains always get zealous/sceptical and chaste/lustful (fun if you get a sceptical lustful bishop
). Would be nice to have a bit more variety there, e.g. a chaste marshal or a vengeful spymaster.