Non-colonization bounty events of human players

[unmerged(45766)]

I know there was a thread about this not so long ago, but I don't find it, so I start this one. If a mod wants to be kind and merge the threads...

I mean, in many events, ahistorical actions (b, c or d) are better than the historical one. This is pushing the player off tracks in regards to history : what's the point in so many times considering the monarchs (and their advisors) were stupid and chose the worse path ?

As an example (not the most historical, but the one close at hand, since I've just been browsing that event file), suppose Poland has conquered Kustrin, Hinterpommern and Silesia. Why is the best option of all the Rzeczpospolita Polska events, action_d ? For the human player, it's obvious that inheriting Lithuania & keeping latin techgroup, gaining baltic culture and 18 cores, and a +2 stab boose is much better than -1 stabhit, losing ruthenian culture, gaining Lithuania as vassal and only four cores. The human player will choose action_d at least 85% of the time (if not 100% - personnally, I don't think I would ever take another action), while the AI will take it 5% of the time.

Another example : Burgundy's demise, a.k.a The Marriage of Mary of Burgundy. For an human player, it's obvious that action_c is the best : same stabboost as action_a (to none for action_b), no loss of territory (neither through independence nor secessions), interesting DP-sliders moves, only at the cost of four revolts and a slight +4 RR for four years ? I'm not even talking of the stability cost of breaking the vassalization to Austria in action_a (would you stay vassal yourself ?).
Hopefully, you've dumped the peace requirement (personnally, I would add a war requirement if that event wasn't so important for the development of France, Austria and Spain).

I think that either such better choices should be made action_a (when not historical events, like first example where Poland is actually overperforming), or rebalance a bit the effects (when historical event, like for second example).

For example, for Burgundy, some wars could be issued against France (at least, if not Austria for scorning Maximilian), stability should receive a negative hit, and RR could be higher.

 

[crash63]

Another example : Burgundy's demise, a.k.a The Marriage of Mary of Burgundy. For an human player, it's obvious that action_c is the best

"a" is an excellent choice. You lose 3 provinces but you keep cores and you can inherit Spain in 1519. It's clearly the best choice.

 

[AlanC9]

I know there was a thread about this not so long ago, but I don't find it, so I start this one. If a mod wants to be kind and merge the threads...

I mean, in many events, ahistorical actions (b, c or d) are better than the historical one. This is pushing the player off tracks in regards to history : what's the point in so many times considering the monarchs (and their advisors) were stupid and chose the worse path ?

Well, in many cases they were stupid. Or just couldn't bring off the alternative action though lack of funds, lack of talent, or some such.

Take the Rzeczpospolita Polska event you mention. Option D requires Poland to move in two directions at once. Historically, it was very improbable. But if it was possible, shouldn't a human be able to do it?

Though in general these choices should have short-term costs; if they were easy your counterpart would have taken that route. I'd give option D a stability penalty, not a bonus.

 

[unmerged(45766)]

Though in general these choices should have short-term costs; if they were easy your counterpart would have taken that route. I'd give option D a stability penalty, not a bonus.

My point is not that it should not be possible, but that the costs and the benifits are absolutely unbalanced, and on top of that only the human player will choose them, not the AI (except in 5%).

Rulers were not as stupid. They made errors, but often the choice they had was either bad in both alternatives, and they had to choose the lesser evil, or the bad consequences weren't foreseeable (sp?), or unprobable. They had often hordes of advisors and councillors, had time enough to make their decision (a awesome lot more than the human player in front of his kb). Their difficulty was that no option was really clear (not as clear-cut as numbered effects when hovering the pointer on the button).


One alternative I have to offer is not to make immediate effects visible. I.e., make the actions of such important and unclear events so that you don't have all the effects, only a part (or none at all in certain cases), but trigger an event for the rest of the effects.
In such a case, have the first action the historical one (as usual), and have as action_b and _c one better action, and one worse. Without seeing all the effects, players will have to guess at what course of action would be better, and the AI will have equal chances of faring better or faring worse. That's the easy option, but for people who know the events (or who look into the files) it won't change much as they'll know all the effects.

The other alternative is similar to the easy one, but requiring flags. Have (at least) two actions possible : the _a the historical one, and the _b and later the ahistorical ones. For each action, have a flag (ex based on marriage of burgundy : marrymaximilian, marrylouis, marryphilip). Then, for each flag, have two (or more for masochist modders ) events triggered by that flag, with a long enough offset, sleeping each other (and perhaps as security a NOT = { event = xxxx } in the trigger), with different effects : one "our boldness was rewarding"-like, and the other "our boldness doomed us"-like.
It's a lot more work, but players won't know if the bold (and ambitious) choice is the best, as each choice (at least the ahistorical ones) would have the possibility to go ascrew.
Eventually, additional triggers can be used to favor one of the events (look at the Mississippi Trade Company for France).

Opinions ?

 

[Garbon]

I dont really see either of your suggestions as being beneficial. I think instead, events should be more balanced towards the historical option. What you are suggesting would require a large overhaul of our current events, and I don't really see that the desire to trick the player into a bad choice is sufficient justification for such an undertaking.

 

[unmerged(45766)]

I dont really see either of your suggestions as being beneficial. I think instead, events should be more balanced towards the historical option. What you are suggesting would require a large overhaul of our current events, and I don't really see that the desire to trick the player into a bad choice is sufficient justification for such an undertaking.

It's not the desire of tricking the player into a bad choice. It's the desire to give the player a reality feeling, in that he won't be sure to have made the right choice.

And rebalancing options was my first post's proposal, before having my (heavier) idea.

 

[Garbon]

Once again...I think this should be brought up in reference to specific events. I don't really see that there needs to be a thread proposing re-balancing. So more like in Burgundy thread : "oh i think this event needs balancing, this is how i'd balance it".

 

[LlywelynII]

Ditto with Garbon as far as how this suggestion could be made helpful; moreover, it really isn't anyway - monarchs frequently had the long-term interests of their state least in their minds and were completely blinded by their own petty interests/religion/mythology/destiny...

Spain was simply badly ruled and directed, the Habsburgs should have just let the Catholic church rot ala Richelieu, the lord of Meissen bankrupted his nation for porcelin, Italy should've given Byzantium more help with less strings, there wasn't a kingdom on earth that understood economic growth, etc.

This was an era of absolute monarchs. The reason absolute monarchs tend to make such lousy rulers is precisely because they make lousy decisions and have no concern for the grunge work of accounting...
jay.

 

[LlywelynII]

This isn't to suggest that events shouldn't be balanced - generally, they should be, in a world of trade-offs.

Otoh, the logical extreme of your argument is that we live in the best of all possible worlds and that the ideal counterfactual game is a hands off that duplicates Western History, only with different accidents.

These rulers made mistakes all the time, so should the AI; we play this game to enjoy fixing precisely those errors,
jay.

 

[unmerged(45766)]

Garbon : it's a question of efficient management. When a job is so huge that it has to be split among different groups, you need someone (or a group of people) issuing adequate guidelines (not mission statements that can be understood one way or the other, and which contradicts itself). You can't have one region making it super-easy for the players, and another being very hard on the same player ; or a region throwing cores anywhere anytime, while another never gives them when not specifically covered by a legal claim. Some decisions have to be made in a centralized manner. Seeing the efficiency of the HC at maintaining a contact between regions ( ), there're a bunch of decisions that should be made so as to guide the others, and have some cohesiveness.

Besides, I don't hope anymore to hear an approving comment from your part. I wonder what I have done to you to always have your hostility towards my ideas.


Llywelyn, if it's a historical mod, why push the players in the ahistorical direction ? Both human and ai are already too keen on going astray, as far as historicity matters. And they were far from totally stupid/selfish/blinded. Absolute monarchs were probably not very democratic*, economy as a pseudo-science was probably unknown (but quite not as much as you think - most financial tools come from the middle ages), but there were often considerations that mattered heavily in their decision-making. Moreover, they didn't always know what the effects of their decisions would be ; in fact, they nearly never had any idea about the success or failure, much less the extent of it. In EU2, the AI bases its decisions on pure randomness, while the human player always knows what the consequences of its decisions will be (and has access to stores of knowledge and advice).
Moreover, I can assure you that the majority of the human being is paralyzed when hard decisions are to be taken, yet monarchs had to take them. Only the one who has no responsibility, nor decision to make, will never make any mistake.

* and I can assure you first hand that our democracies are not so perfect as you might think...

 

[Garbon]

Hypothetically, people should only be submitting balanced events / people should be commenting on events that are unbalanced (which does happen a lot, but I guess people aren't perfect).

Don't take it personally, you just keep either suggesting things that have been proposed in the past or that aren't feasible without a great amount of work and aren't really worth the expenditure of energy. Its also easier to see your proposal, as you start new threads for all of them

 

[unmerged(21523)]

Ditto with Garbon as far as how this suggestion could be made helpful; moreover, it really isn't anyway - monarchs frequently had the long-term interests of their state least in their minds and were completely blinded by their own petty interests/religion/mythology/destiny...

Spain was simply badly ruled and directed, the Habsburgs should have just let the Catholic church rot ala Richelieu, the lord of Meissen bankrupted his nation for porcelin, Italy should've given Byzantium more help with less strings, there wasn't a kingdom on earth that understood economic growth, etc.

This was an era of absolute monarchs. The reason absolute monarchs tend to make such lousy rulers is precisely because they make lousy decisions and have no concern for the grunge work of accounting...
jay.

Seconding Ambassador here, I doubt that medieval and early modern governments were in all reality less public-minded than official of our own day however much contemporary political types would like to claim the contrary. Public-Choice theory (or is it game theory?) even dictates that a monarch with a reasonable expectation that his country will be inherited by his own descendants has a greater incentive to keep up the family property (the kingdom) than a democratic governor with a fixed term and no control over his successor (whose incentive is to maximize his own profits for the duration of his tenure in office). Historic events should have their choices limited by political realities of the day, but as the political situation of a given EU game is likely to show significant deviation from actual historical political conditions, it is difficult to put this principle into action for EU mods.

 

[LlywelynII]

Seconding Ambassador here, I doubt that medieval and early modern governments were in all reality less public-minded than official of our own day however much contemporary political types would like to claim the contrary. Public-Choice theory (or is it game theory?) even dictates that a monarch with a reasonable expectation that his country will be inherited by his own descendants has a greater incentive to keep up the family property (the kingdom) than a democratic governor with a fixed term and no control over his successor (whose incentive is to maximize his own profits for the duration of his tenure in office).

Well, there's no response I could make to this that could be construed as charitable so I suppose I should merely point out that game theory can only involve maximizing the outcome of rational players, and typically only in repeatable scenarios. Typically, neither applied.

Historic events should have their choices limited by political realities of the day...

Which as Garbon pointed out merely involves balancing considerations - eg, it was possible for the Reyes Catholicos to have pursued a far more tolerant course than they did: Spain would be stronger, but their short-term income and stability should suffer. Pace Garbon, there are some decisions that are simply positive and don't involve balance, but they are few and far between.

jay.