crash63 said:
I'm not agree at all. If you have 200 000 (for example) soldiers at the border, AI accepts more often diploannexion. I have seen it very often.
It helps when making an assertion like this if you can either make reference to specific information from the game itself (such as the coding, the ReadMe file, or something of the sort) or to play-testing that can isolate the influence of the issue. Otherwise, without some controls, you don't know if the troops had anything to do with it or not.
As an example, I, before reading and testing, always assumed that leaving troops in a province helped with colonization. I thought this because it seemed to me that a positive result occurred more often if troops were still in the province as the colonist arrived. I know I am not alone in having made this assumption; others at times post here making that claim. But, of course, troops in and of themselves have no effect, and the determination as to whether or not your colonization attempt will be successful is made the moment you click on the button. You just don't get to see the result until the settler arrives.
To know if your "troops on the border" theory really is true, you must do one of three things:
1. Get Johan (or someone who worked on that piece of coding) to admit or deny the claim;
2. Find text in the ReadMe file establishing that it was added as a modification (although the ReadMe is, at times, unreliable because it often is too terse to really understand exactly what is done); or
3. Test a situation by manipulating the Save file for a game, adding or removing massed troops on the border. Over the course of several (meaning something like 50+ each possible set-up) tries, you can develop some statistical evidence in support of or in contradiction of your hypothesis.
