Classique said:
I'd like too.
Does anyone know if it' s possible to add/remove straits ? I tried to install the beta patch without the straits.csv, but that doesn't remove the straits, only its graphics.
-
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.
I'd like too.
Does anyone know if it' s possible to add/remove straits ? I tried to install the beta patch without the straits.csv, but that doesn't remove the straits, only its graphics.
lawkeeper said:
Just curious - how do you get "always", "usually" and "rarely" out of two games?
Ural said:
It is possible. It was once done to create Panama and Suez Canals for the Modern Day Scenario... there's a tool for it somewhere.
Prince Eugene said:
That's about adjacency - to get or remove a blockable straight you have to mess with the .exe (= Johan only)
Now if blockable straights would be exported somehow
"Couple" is another word for "a few", but I meant "several". Precisely, 7 games run for 100-150 years, and 4 more for 50 years. Indeed, that's not a few.AndrewT said:
o Yes, that'd be good.Zander said:
And logical, since Wales are gaelic, thus providing a good explanation for close ties with the green island.
Besides, I wouldn't call Panama and Suez "blockable straits", since I really don't see how a fleet would block the crossing of those canals. On the contrary, in canals, land forces should be able to block the passage of ships. But I guess it's a bit out-of-era.
Nikolai II said:That's about adjacency - to get or remove a blockable straight you have to mess with the .exe (= Johan only)
Now if blockable straights would be exported somehow
Darn. I'm playing 1.08 beta-free because of the goofy straits and some other MP "balance" focused changes. If only each and every feature of the game were optional on/off...
Phil
PS- reading what i've just typed, i realize how incredibly spoiled i am by johan. the more he gives, the more i expect...
o 
Seconding much of what lawkeeper stated, I don't find as much game play problems with the Tangiers strait as the Dover and Irish Straits (playing SP only for this and all following observations). Spain has not, in more than 6 games (no, I was not playing as Spain) taken over North Africa. My critique centers on:
1. England's only hope is to crush France early. Admittedly, the strait helps in this if you are playing as England, but then you end up battling Burgundy and the French minors, rather than have a rivalry with a powerful France. Not quite as satisfying.
2. Scotland has, in all 6 games, taken over every Irish province but Meath. I guess this is better than Spain and Genoa having Irish provinces, but nonetheless ... (no, I was not playing as Scotland either).
3. The English AI, even if it has a large fleet, is oblivious to the threat of French troops in or near Calais. The fleet sits at harbor rather than block the French advance. Even after the troops have marched over the straits, the English AI makes no attempt to block additional reinforcements. If you play SP as France, you end up as the hegemon in Europe before 1500. Then it simply becomes a game of picking up German minors until you lose interest and start colonizing.
4. Some might criticize this change for even further devaluing the already almost useless transports, but since I never ever build them I can't use this as a valid criticism. (In fact, I go so far as to disband any transports I gain as a result of random events or annexations - why pay maintenance for them?).
Proposed solutions are one of two things; either get rid of the Irish and Dover straits, OR make the transit times on these straits be very high to mimic how long it would take to assemble a flotilla of barges and fishing boats. I know that the latter is possible, it was just never implemented in the finished game (i.e., making transit times different for different provinces). A well designed model along these lines would alleviate a few concerns, including not only allowing England (for example) to rapidly redeploy a fleet when a large force of French are beginning their slow march across the water but also better model the differences in marching times across the huge Asian provinces versus the smaller European ones and give transit penalties for crossing mountains (with smaller penalties for marshes and forests). If this could be implemented, I'd like to see EU programmers get rid of all straits and use this "extended transit time" model.
My two concerns are whether or not the English AI would, even with the increased transit times across the Dover strait, respond to the threat in time to at least put up a battle 9 times out of 10, and whether or not Scotland can be inhibited from crossing the Irish straits every single game. I've got no problem with the variability that the game allows, I just balk when I see the ahistoric options occur so frequently. Maybe Scotland, if all went well and England was engaged elsewhere, would have grown into a rival to England, but that shouldn't happen every game. Nor should either France or England be subdued every game; most games, they should both survive and prosper in spite of their proximity.
1. England's only hope is to crush France early. Admittedly, the strait helps in this if you are playing as England, but then you end up battling Burgundy and the French minors, rather than have a rivalry with a powerful France. Not quite as satisfying.
2. Scotland has, in all 6 games, taken over every Irish province but Meath. I guess this is better than Spain and Genoa having Irish provinces, but nonetheless ... (no, I was not playing as Scotland either).
3. The English AI, even if it has a large fleet, is oblivious to the threat of French troops in or near Calais. The fleet sits at harbor rather than block the French advance. Even after the troops have marched over the straits, the English AI makes no attempt to block additional reinforcements. If you play SP as France, you end up as the hegemon in Europe before 1500. Then it simply becomes a game of picking up German minors until you lose interest and start colonizing.
4. Some might criticize this change for even further devaluing the already almost useless transports, but since I never ever build them I can't use this as a valid criticism. (In fact, I go so far as to disband any transports I gain as a result of random events or annexations - why pay maintenance for them?).
Proposed solutions are one of two things; either get rid of the Irish and Dover straits, OR make the transit times on these straits be very high to mimic how long it would take to assemble a flotilla of barges and fishing boats. I know that the latter is possible, it was just never implemented in the finished game (i.e., making transit times different for different provinces). A well designed model along these lines would alleviate a few concerns, including not only allowing England (for example) to rapidly redeploy a fleet when a large force of French are beginning their slow march across the water but also better model the differences in marching times across the huge Asian provinces versus the smaller European ones and give transit penalties for crossing mountains (with smaller penalties for marshes and forests). If this could be implemented, I'd like to see EU programmers get rid of all straits and use this "extended transit time" model.
My two concerns are whether or not the English AI would, even with the increased transit times across the Dover strait, respond to the threat in time to at least put up a battle 9 times out of 10, and whether or not Scotland can be inhibited from crossing the Irish straits every single game. I've got no problem with the variability that the game allows, I just balk when I see the ahistoric options occur so frequently. Maybe Scotland, if all went well and England was engaged elsewhere, would have grown into a rival to England, but that shouldn't happen every game. Nor should either France or England be subdued every game; most games, they should both survive and prosper in spite of their proximity.
After taking a look through this thread, I can say slightly igorantly that I'm still scratching my head as to why some of the new straights are there.
Simply put if it was a MP enhancement than I wish it was able to be turned off in SP. But I guess that's why you need 2 copies of Eu2 on your comp if you want to play Eu2.
I wish the English AI was able to defend itself better.
Simply put if it was a MP enhancement than I wish it was able to be turned off in SP. But I guess that's why you need 2 copies of Eu2 on your comp if you want to play Eu2.
I wish the English AI was able to defend itself better.
I'd certainly say that the England-Calais strait is an interesting experiment that has failed, and would prefer to see this one, at least, removed in the next version. As many have said, the AI can't cope. I've been playing the 1795 scen as France, as practice for MP war, and basically you just wait for the AI to leave the channel unguarded, invade and take the lot.
Adam Breit said:
I'm an MP newbie. In Nappy it doesn't seem to me, as a novice, to make much difference - England controls the channel anyway and can land big armies by normal ship transport nearly as easily as it can walk them over - maybe it keeps France a little more honest. I don't yet know what effect it has on the early game in MP.
I have no problem with betas that are intended purely for MP. But historically their have been lots of bugs/problems in the game, and generally if you want a better game of SP, you've needed to take every single patch that has come along. And I don't think it's true really that the last few betas have only been for MP - that is, some of the changes have improved SP as well.
A change like these straits really means that Paradox would have to rigorously issue parallel series of patches, with all the general improvements for both SP and MP,and special ones for MP - which I suspect is asking a bit much really.
The English channel seems to me to be a special case, because the game is set up for the countries on either side of it to be at war a lot - and the AI just messes it up.
passer by said:
If you consider that the real outcome of history is the midpoint or should be the most common outcome, it happens far too often in my games (not as either of the two) that France has pieces of England - and Scotland. England doesn't subdue the natives in North America well (of course the Spanish don't really conquer Central & South America often, either) so it may be that England needs to be a bit stronger overall. Or perhaps making it so that national provinces of other European countries across waterways are harder to get in peace agreements ... ?
I don’t want AI nations that (with my hands off) play against each other to reproduce near historical outcomes. I want the AI nations to play in order to get as powerful as possible from the historical starting point they have, and with the events/monarchs/luck/… they get. (As human MP players would do).
Simply bcz that’s how I play my nations, and I want my opponents (the AI) to do the same. It's a random approach where history is only one of several possible outcomes. I think paradox intended it to be like that.
After playing with the beta for a while my experience is that the new landbridges has slightly improved the AI to do so. If France is powerful enough to invade Britain, then it does, and the opposite. Sure that the AI controlled English fleet should guard better, but since all nations have equally worthless AI, that isn’t so unfair. I would rather say that it is consistent with the level of mistakes the AI does in all warfare.
I agree that from a historical point of view the landbridge at Dover has a negative effect on the AI. That is sad for players who like a more historical development. But I like to keep all current landbridges.
Simply bcz that’s how I play my nations, and I want my opponents (the AI) to do the same. It's a random approach where history is only one of several possible outcomes. I think paradox intended it to be like that.
After playing with the beta for a while my experience is that the new landbridges has slightly improved the AI to do so. If France is powerful enough to invade Britain, then it does, and the opposite. Sure that the AI controlled English fleet should guard better, but since all nations have equally worthless AI, that isn’t so unfair. I would rather say that it is consistent with the level of mistakes the AI does in all warfare.
I agree that from a historical point of view the landbridge at Dover has a negative effect on the AI. That is sad for players who like a more historical development.
But I like to keep all current landbridges.
Methinks the landbridge across the Straits of Dover somehow fits more closely to the historical English conceptualization of that piece of water.
Theat landbridge is no worse than the one across the Aegean.
Straitscode and landbridges are all right with me.
Theat landbridge is no worse than the one across the Aegean.
Straitscode and landbridges are all right with me.
How do those straits work in MP? Or has that been posted somewhere already?Adam Breit said:
Sven_vegas said:I don’t want AI nations that (with my hands off) play against each other to reproduce near historical outcomes. I want the AI nations to play in order to get as powerful as possible from the historical starting point they have, and with the events/monarchs/luck/… they get. (As human MP players would do).
Simply bcz that’s how I play my nations, and I want my opponents (the AI) to do the same. It's a random approach where history is only one of several possible outcomes. I think paradox intended it to be like that.
After playing with the beta for a while my experience is that the new landbridges has slightly improved the AI to do so. If France is powerful enough to invade Britain, then it does, and the opposite. Sure that the AI controlled English fleet should guard better, but since all nations have equally worthless AI, that isn’t so unfair. I would rather say that it is consistent with the level of mistakes the AI does in all warfare.
I agree that from a historical point of view the landbridge at Dover has a negative effect on the AI. That is sad for players who like a more historical development.
No I'm not particularly interested in rigorously replicating historical outcomes. And I certainly don't want to artificially reinforce some schoolboy history idea of the impregnability of the English channel. But the game, AI and events are set up for a reasonably strong England, colonising at least in the Americas, with emphasis on naval rather than land research etc. If you take away from AI England the chance to do that, by ensuring that it has half of its British Provinces owned by other countries by 1550 or so, then the game balance is right out of whack.
I have seen England do poorly, or just about hold its own - I have never seen it using the strait to establish long term ownership of several contiguous provinces in northern France. Not surprising as the AI tells it not to. So the strait is a mechanism to allow Europe into England, not the other way around. Probably a good idea in MP, but no good in SP.
Perhaps the answer then, for those who don't want to see England protected by the sea, is to give them all Austrias or Prussias tech and events, so that it can develop a Euro-centric AI strategy with emphasis on land. And then you can keep the strait. In fact, if you really want to cut England down to size, you could close off the strait completely, and join Calais and Kent - oh no, that won't do will it, because then Sweden and Prussia will have further to sail to establish their African colonies, and we wouldn't want to make life harder for the Swedes - sorry, bad idea.
Has Johan given any clues as to how he feels about this?
Personally, I don't like the changes. MP usage or not.
Personally, I don't like the changes. MP usage or not.