Interregnum Campaign

[Mats_SX]

The Abbasids might be available after all but if you choose them, we'd want an 'experienced' player in Egypt. Unless we we also have Il Khanate.

Not necessarily if I play them, which I hope I can in case there are enough players. I have only taken a real part in about 5 MP campaigns, and my often conservative way of playing (I don't normally take more than what feels or looks right for my country) may stop me from growing obscenely powerful as Abbasids, even if my neighbours are AI.

Fair enough.

Do you have ICQ, Samilou? It is the main tool used around these parts for diplomacy. MSN also works of course.

 

[Therion]

I think I can be a regular sub instead of a perm player on Sundays.

We might be able to squeeze in another country, if you want to be a perm. Obviously, a regular sub is most appreciated.

 

[Mats_SX]

Case 3: War between 2 alliances of 2 or more nations.
For any non-alliance peace between two nations, see case 1.
For any alliance to separate nation peace deal (for any member of the other alliance, even leader), see case 2.
If the winning alliance's leader wants to force-peace the whole other alliance, he needs 99 warscore for his alliance on the other alliance. It is the losing leader's stability that is taken into consideration.

I would like to discuss the bold part. The rule was modified to mirror the new peace rule on province limit. That is now opening a hole where the alliance leader is suddenly responsible for all of his allies' war efforts. Let me give an example of a scenario where the rule could be considered unfair:

FRA, ITA war on ENG, BRA:
ENG occupies 2 of FRA's CoTs. FRA occupies 2 of ENG's CoTs. ENG vs FRA ws is 0. But BRA has got 99 ws on ITA. This situation allows ENG to force-peace FRA for the alliance, taking 2 CoTs.

Even though FRA did not lose the war, they are subject to a forced peace. I am not saying this is wrong; the leader of an alliance just gets a large pile of responsibility, along with the opportunity to do this kind of forced peace. But it is slightly weird that, ENG as leader did not win the war, but they got provinces, FRA as leader did not lose the war, but they lost provinces, BRA as non-leader did in fact win the war, but they were left with nothing, ITA as non-leader did in fact lose the war, but they got away for free.

What do you think, Therion?

 

[Therion]

I would like to discuss the bold part. The rule was modified to mirror the new peace rule on province limit. That is now opening a hole where the alliance leader is suddenly responsible for all of his allies' war efforts. Let me give an example of a scenario where the rule could be considered unfair:

FRA, ITA war on ENG, BRA:
ENG occupies 2 of FRA's CoTs. FRA occupies 2 of ENG's CoTs. ENG vs FRA ws is 0. But BRA has got 99 ws on ITA. This situation allows ENG to force-peace FRA for the alliance, taking 2 CoTs.

Even though FRA did not lose the war, they are subject to a forced peace. I am not saying this is wrong; the leader of an alliance just gets a large pile of responsibility, along with the opportunity to do this kind of forced peace. But it is slightly weird that, ENG as leader did not win the war, but they got provinces, FRA as leader did not lose the war, but they lost provinces, BRA as non-leader did in fact win the war, but they were left with nothing, ITA as non-leader did in fact lose the war, but they got away for free.

What do you think, Therion?

That would indeed be strange, but that is the danger of being in an alliance. One should always choose alliances wisely. Plus, in this case, Brandenburg could have easily force-peaced Italy separately (in accordance with force-peace rule - case 1).

Secondly, England is not allowed to peace FOR ALLIANCE without consulting allies (refer to human rule no. 3). Brandenburg has the right to stop England from making an ALLIANCE force-peace offer. Brandenburg can ask England to keep stabhitting France for alliance until the final force-peace offer for example. In case France accepts a stabhitting offer before, that would be a risk Brandenburg chose to take by being an ingame ally of England. Had they fought in separate alliances, they would not have had this problem but it would generally have been more difficult to accumulate WS.

Oh, and Brandenburg can always specify what should be included in a stabhitting offer.

 

[Mats_SX]

Very good. I missed taking that "must ask allies"-rule into account. The situation is far more clear now, thank you.

 

[Therion]

Added this rule.

9. If a player cannot attend or find a sub when at war, the utmost effort should be made to establish peace before session.

In case a players fails to attend without notice:
- Whitepeace with enemies if he has zero or positive WS.
- If he has negative WS, enemies can sue for peace for that amount of WS or less.

I know this could be exploited in some ways... Still, I cannot think of better alternatives.

 

[Mats_SX]

Will we use ghosts? And there is zero compensation for lost events?

 

[Therion]

Not sure. Actually, AI can be better than ghost due to events.. and in this mod, he's pretty solid.

What do you think?

Still, what to do when at war? Let AI fight a human?

 

[Mats_SX]

Not sure. Actually, AI can be better than ghost due to events.. and in this mod, he's pretty solid.

What do you think?

Still, what to do when at war? Let AI fight a human?

To the second part, strictly no. Your first proposal should be just fine. The sole purpose for the AI control of the nation would be to receive evens. But the AI might fuck other things up too, like not handling rebels, dowing humans, getting huge badboy etc etc.

A ghost is far more easy to handle, especially since there will be no correcting edits. Although that strikes hard for a ghost too, since they can not handle rebels any better than the AI.

 

[Monkii-sama]

I'd say no ghosts but use AI. It does fine from what I have seen.

 

[Samilou]

Fair enough.

Do you have ICQ, Samilou? It is the main tool used around these parts for diplomacy. MSN also works of course.

I don't have, and never will, have ICQ. I am accessible here, in PM's, email (less reliable) or MSN.

To the second part, strictly no. Your first proposal should be just fine. The sole purpose for the AI control of the nation would be to receive evens. But the AI might fuck other things up too, like not handling rebels, dowing humans, getting huge badboy etc etc.

A ghost is far more easy to handle, especially since there will be no correcting edits. Although that strikes hard for a ghost too, since they can not handle rebels any better than the AI.

I guess one could allow the player itself to choose ghosting or AI-ing, if that person is available to at least answer such a question.

 

[Mats_SX]

I'd say no ghosts but use AI. It does fine from what I have seen.

Have you seen the AI when there are only large, rich, powerful nations left on the map? AI as in lots of AI is no probs. The AI in control of a great human nation is bound to go wrong.

I don't have, and never will, have ICQ. I am accessible here, in PM's, email (less reliable) or MSN.

You should get it. Most people use it.

 

[Therion]

In certain respects, AI can be superior to a human (deflation, tax increases, etc.).

I guess one could allow the player itself to choose ghosting or AI-ing, if that person is available to at least answer such a question.

True, but this could also be abused. Ghosting the nation when bad events are anticipated and AIing in case of good events for example.

Anyway, despite all of its shortcomings, absentism procedure shall remain as it is.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now, something else. We tested yesterday and encountered a few seemingly engine-related bugs that I had never encountered before.

When trying to purchase something without having its amount + 100d in the treasury (for example spending 50d on a bailiff with 149d in treasury), an automatic loan kept being generated.

Each loan (70d) could not be paid without having more than 170d (possibly) in the treasury.

It could be the case that the problems initiate after being forced to take loans due to having to pay in events. But I am not sure about this. It could be just a coincidence.

Might anyone else have encountered this?

 

[Monkii-sama]

I did, remember my Hansa? I had on average 2-4 loans for 30 years. So I just saved up a big pile of ducats and never went below ~600 again.

 

[Therion]

For poorer nations, that can be a problem. I got 20 loans as Cossacks, which I couldn't pay off no matter how much I looted. And anything which generates wealth (like a bailiff or a handful of infantry to loot) kept generating autoloans.

 

[Mats_SX]

For poorer nations, that can be a problem. I got 20 loans as Cossacks, which I couldn't pay off no matter how much I looted. And anything which generates wealth (like a bailiff or a handful of infantry to loot) kept generating autoloans.

That's not playable tbh. Even in SP Cossack economy is that low, so I can imagine the pain if there are MP bugs.

 

[Samilou]

I'd say some limited edits to clear effects from serious bugs and such WILL have to be permitted.

 

[Samilou]

easy solution; every human will not choose "gradute my size loan".

There are lag loans and stuff too though, which can be destructive if they cause somebody to go bankrupt.

 

[Mats_SX]

easy solution;no human will choose "gradute my size loan" but instead will go on with the option "b" wich keeps the default standard 200sum.

That's not the issue, is it? It's the sum of the debts, not the size of the loans, as I understood it.

 

[unmerged(15247)]

There are lag loans and stuff too though, which can be destructive if they cause somebody to go bankrupt.

easy solution;no human will choose "gradute my size loan" but instead will go on with the option "b" wich keeps the default standard 200sum.

auto loans happen for a few reasons.
while at war, if a province is pillaged the manpower there is temporarry lost = hits and affects the overall suport limit right away= the end month income is calculated with a "loss". this is the most common form of lag loan(really just an excuse, we usually simplly forget to count in this variable many times, one of those very things that makes eu2 so special), and we all had it present in mp play at one time or another. it is built in the eu2 engine as a feature(and makes perfect sense, player shall avoid pillage or not maximize support in the first place = EASY to avoid if carefull).now here is why, since ever, everyone keeps a small safety cash amount in treasury at all times but especially during wars (rebels can and do couse same "problem" since they pillage too). in vanila would be like at least 10-20 ducats in earlly period and up to 100 or so in late game.

now problem therion is taking about is that when take an auto loan of "70" (graduated loan size) the safety net becomes 130+ becouse the engine still calculates it as a 200( 200-70=130 so this 130 becomes as nonexistent in the written logarithm). so in effect , the player pays LESS interst on a "70" loan but apparentlly the engine still sees the loan as beeing 200. for anyone still confused, just think of the similarities and wrong visuals the economoc ledger displays as well(in any eu2mod/,map). intreasting that this does not happen in sp at all but only sometimes in mp and whomever is hosting, his connection(can not think of anything else related) also seem to play a role into making this happen or not.