These event have been changed several times. But it's not changed between 1.38 and 1.39.Garbon said:Ahem, the second event is changed. It used to force you to declare war on the Turks.
-
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.
Couldn't the use of ai = yes be extended to enhance the overall gameplay for players. I could see a problem with Multiplayer though, but I guess you don't play that kind of nations then ("Doomed nations MP game", Granada 1492 and so on).
Unfortunately, since ai = yes only works for the recieving country this wouldn't "solve" the problem when geting ceded provinces a la Sibir, unless they get a confirmation event.
Unfortunately, since ai = yes only works for the recieving country this wouldn't "solve" the problem when geting ceded provinces a la Sibir, unless they get a confirmation event.
Kaigon said:
Also, we try not to have divergent sequences for the AI and the player unless really necessary.
And as of said, even if Sibir got a confirmation event they shouldn't have a choice. I considered not even having Sibir in the 1419 start (just have it revolt), however I thought people might want to play it.
This is something i've been leaning less and less for, but only for certain conditions where FE the ceding Constantinople to OE. As it is, no human would ever take option a, which imo is something we want them to atleast consider. For the AI giving them more might be different, but for human, your basically shouting out don't pick me.Garbon said:Also, we try not to have divergent sequences for the AI and the player unless really necessary.
And as of said, even if Sibir got a confirmation event they shouldn't have a choice. I considered not even having Sibir in the 1419 start (just have it revolt), however I thought people might want to play it.
The vassalization of Bima, that's not as far as i can tell as fundimentally important, but if its nessary for portugal normally to perform well, then this would also be something where parrallel events were needed, but here i say this probably can be avoided.
The one exception is things that already were in the makings before the 1419, such as the fall of the Timurid Empire.
And I agree with Yodamaster about sleeping events for unhistorical situations. Very few things are really absolutely needed every game that they shouldn't be slept if the historical situation doesn't allow it.
I'm beginning to think we should have an AI-only event for Constantinople. It's a special case, AFAIK it's unique in AGCEEP. We wouldn't have this event at all unless there was no way to get OE functioning reliablyl without it. It's not historical, and most players can find it highly annoying to have to chose between declaring war and ceding.
Yep. The human player's intend while conquering Thrace is sometimes just to hamper Ottoman development. And then you it hand over :wacko:
For a difficult minor, try Ryazan, Tver or Serbia, for an uphill one, go Mazandaran - it's position amidst majors as well as those plentiful baddie events will drive you nuts. Granada or Byzantine Empire have many events, as does Ayutthaya. A problem is that minors that haven't accomplished anything over the course of their history don't have any real number of events. Georgia falls apart nicely, Nubia is a hard country.
I think it's nice we make Ottoman AI react on the player's attempt to castrate it by declaring war. Otherwise it's too easy.
Norrefeldt said:
I think it's nice we make Ottoman AI react on the player's attempt to castrate it by declaring war. Otherwise it's too easy.
Jinnai said:
Hey!!!
It's problematic only becouse Bima dont "discover" (dont get any contact) with the overlord. Bima should discover Porto! Whatever you'll do will with this event, add the discovery (if thats possible to script).
almoravid said:
I agree, i cant imagine historical OE tolerating Constantinople in hands of any minor county.
superhero said:
Its not possible hence the problem. I do think what would be best would be to give both sides confirmation events starting on the side of Bima (like a-agree and b-disagree) which then triggers an event to give Portgual a choice. I have a few event vassalizations scripted in this manner to allow for the possibility of hostile attitude on the part of either party.
Tsk tsk, this event should be in the Ottoman thread.
In principle I do not oppose it, but is it really necessary? How often do the Ottos fail to conquer Thrace due to it being in other hands? 2%, 5%, 10%? A more pacific AI set-up will make it even less likely by reducing drastically the Italian-Greek random wars.
Other than that, I guess that it would only work for Muslims. I don't see Venice, Serbia or Hungary just handing down Constantinople to the Turks. They would undoubtly go to war to keep it.
In principle I do not oppose it, but is it really necessary? How often do the Ottos fail to conquer Thrace due to it being in other hands? 2%, 5%, 10%? A more pacific AI set-up will make it even less likely by reducing drastically the Italian-Greek random wars.
Other than that, I guess that it would only work for Muslims. I don't see Venice, Serbia or Hungary just handing down Constantinople to the Turks. They would undoubtly go to war to keep it.
Well i think it was mainly saying how as a human the event was completely unbalanced that either you had to go to war or take a paltry sum, neither good choices. The amount that would be worthy for a human to hand over such a strategically and economically lucrative province would be far too unbalancing.Fodoron said:
The inevitability of fate is what I love about AGC-EEP. If you want a more "what-if" approach, just play vanilla.