-
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.
AugCaesar said:
Up to the point where there are few players, I think the best is to leave it NPC up to the moment where we need a very active Pope.
wie-dzia-łem.....
Welcome back SaT.
I understand that cold sweats and shaking hands were unbearable?
Welcome back SaT.
I understand that cold sweats and shaking hands were unbearable? 
Pope run by events as long as he is NPC? sure, why not, I owuld like to see the same applied for some other NPC realms. I would love to see how would it work in reality.
glad you are back SaT, well said in the inscriptions, let's all forget about this bad day
glad you are back SaT, well said in the inscriptions, let's all forget about this bad day
I was bored. My courts are never as good as, say, Praetor's, FB's or SaT's (Wait, he's only had one...)
So, I decided to try a new kind of family tree... Used the Palaeologii because they've got interesting branches and intermarriages. (It was either them or the Plantagenets, and the whole York/Lancaster thing and descent through females would be hard to explain)
Anyway, give 'er a looksie.
Males are boxes, females are circles. "X"-ed in people are deceased.
I think it's a lot easier to make and to understand than the way most people do it. With all due respect to my Piemontese and Sicilian friends
So, I decided to try a new kind of family tree... Used the Palaeologii because they've got interesting branches and intermarriages. (It was either them or the Plantagenets, and the whole York/Lancaster thing and descent through females would be hard to explain)
Anyway, give 'er a looksie.
Males are boxes, females are circles. "X"-ed in people are deceased.
I think it's a lot easier to make and to understand than the way most people do it. With all due respect to my Piemontese and Sicilian friends
Friedrich II said:I think it's a lot easier to make and to understand than the way most people do it. With all due respect to my Piemontese and Sicilian friends
Do one of those for England and you're hired! Nice chart.
Christ! That must have been a lot of work, F2. Quite a few of those aren't on either my or SaT's genealogy lists.
I like the way we do it now, but I would love to see you do the House of Osman in a list like that. IIRC You told me you did a lot of the work, so why not start there?
I like the way we do it now, but I would love to see you do the House of Osman in a list like that. IIRC You told me you did a lot of the work, so why not start there?
Visio?!?
Could it be that my main tool for work will become my main tool for play?
WORLDS COLLIDE!
Could it be that my main tool for work will become my main tool for play?
WORLDS COLLIDE!
I Killed Kenny said:well I've done my family tree using paint
Nice family tree, sir.
Not to spam the IaGQ thread, but I must say I agree with Praetor. Events shouldn't be run if the event mod and the player haven't agreed to the table and the content, if not else to make it compatible with IC happenings which the player most likely has a much better idea of than the mod has. As far as I understand both Avernite and Praetor were surprised by the events ran, and I remember my own first funeral event when the death of a beloved leader actually made the people's morale increase greatly and also the tech of the armies "the mongols" had also been changed to "Pskov" in the table, something that was against my RP and without my knowledge. Not that it mattered much at that time since I was just about to be annexed, but for people reading the vault and so it might be confusing and I feel Praetor's pain now when he might have to scrap his future IC story
"the mongols" had also been changed to "Pskov" in the table, something that was against my RP and without my knowledge. Not that it mattered much at that time since I was just about to be annexed, but for people reading the vault and so it might be confusing and I feel Praetor's pain now when he might have to scrap his future IC story
Last edited:
Flame of Udûn said:Not to spam the IaGQ thread, but I must say I agree with Praetor. Events shouldn't be run if the event mod and the player haven't agreed to the table and the content, if not else to make it compatible with IC happenings which the player most likely has a much better idea of than the mod has. As far as I understand both Avernite and Praetor were surprised by the events ran, and I remember my own first funeral event when the death of a beloved leader actually made the people's morale increase greatly and also the tech of the armies
I tought that if there are some changes in event the player who post it can check it out and say sth, or resign? If not, ehh, that should look like above, IMO.
Despite Rene d`Anjou don`t like Aragon in Sicily
, I wouldn`t approve province changing owner all of suddeden. In my opinion I it was not well-fouded. I also don`t get Sicily changing cultire from Greek to Italian. Why did it happen and how?
aye, I was surprised, but it was more like the event mod flat out rejected my proposal and instead gave me a reactionary event which is, IMO, quite within his rights. Even if I don't like it
Flame of Udûn said:Not to spam the IaGQ thread, but I must say I agree with Praetor. Events shouldn't be run if the event mod and the player haven't agreed to the table and the content, if not else to make it compatible with IC happenings which the player most likely has a much better idea of than the mod has. As far as I understand both Avernite and Praetor were surprised by the events ran, and I remember my own first funeral event when the death of a beloved leader actually made the people's morale increase greatly and also the tech of the armies
the events are the essence of chaos.
however, if you feel the same, and praetor too, i will in the future communicate with the players if im making radical diversions from the suggested event tables.
you mentioned two points that i always made very clear:
1.my event outcomes are balanced. that means you never know what you get. the good or the bad. it is the dice that really decide.
2.province transfers via event are rare occasions. never with npc realms involved. maybe, maybe only when BOTH affected realms (players) agree to it.
Praetor, you can always request a second event. nobody is stopping you. bear my 2 points above in mind though when doing so.
thank you.
That would be great yes, thank youLadislav said:
I don't mind your two "rules" at all, they are good to prevent overpowered events, as long as players and mod develop the event together and both agree to the final version I'm fine. and Avernite, I really don't think an innocent request alone should justify a reactionary event :wacko: only when you screw up greatly and intentionally in IC history you should get one imho.
Flame of Udûn said:Not to spam the IaGQ thread, but I must say I agree with Praetor. Events shouldn't be run if the event mod and the player haven't agreed to the table and the content, if not else to make it compatible with IC happenings which the player most likely has a much better idea of than the mod has. As far as I understand both Avernite and Praetor were surprised by the events ran, and I remember my own first funeral event when the death of a beloved leader actually made the people's morale increase greatly and also the tech of the armies
well said, well said.
my two cents though, I disagree with the idea of "balanced" events 50/50 chance bad/good outcome, in my opinion it's unrealistic and plain silly, in my opinion some things have simple higher chance of success and some have less, sometimes there shuld be just a slim chance of backfire sometimes it should be significantly larger. the factors taken into account should be common sense, opinion of players (aides) not involved in the event, eco invested, modifiers from the earlier events (and I personally love chain events) and relevant role-play (but not on the basis, the "more" the better)
if all future events are going to be 50/50 based on D6 I don't want to have anything to do with them, thank you very much :wacko:
Longinus said:
I agree with Long here. I don't believe 50/50 as much as I believe events should have a negative/neutral/positive outcome, but depending upon the event and the circumstances the negative doesen't have to equal the weight of the positive, and vice versa.
There are two ways to handle this, one is to create event charts that are weighted according to circumstances. The second is to create the 50/50 even charts that Ladislav is speaking of and assign possible circumstance modifiers (we don't like rp obviously, which is fine, rp however should be considered with the circumstance, as well as common sense and accuracy). Quite simply some things should have a far greater chance of suceeding than others, also events add a mechanical weight to what we all say. Not every event necessarily has to have a direct statistical outcome, but could be the basis of claims, of special circumstances in future situations. Maybe instead of the basic 1 morale for a year, maybe 1 morale in the next battle against such and such foe. Such things could easily be recorded in nat stats and then referenced in a player's battle orders and would also add more flexibility to events. Such things are what I spoke of in the inscrips thread.
Finally I agree with Ladislav that events should never change province ownership without the consent of both players. However the point I was trying to make to Praetor was that by making his case stronger through continued effort, that can only help him in the future.
And again like Long I love event chains.
speaking of EVENTS only. RED means bad. BLUE means good.
Scenario 1:
Germany is played by Ladislav. Belgium is NPC(non-player country).
Ladislav requests an event where Germany gains a province from Belgium. He has done all the RP and is willing to spend eco.
Scenario 2:
Germany is played by Ladislav. Belgium is played by Steve.
Ladislav requests an event where Germany gains a province from Belgium. He has done all the RP and is willing to spend eco.
Scenario 3:
Germany is played by Ladislav. Belgium is played by Steve.
Steve requests an event where Germany gains a province from Belgium.
Scenario 4:
Germany is played by Ladislav. Belgium is played by Steve.
Ladislav scripts the proposal for the event and then emails it to Steve. Steve then requests that event where Germany gains a province from Belgium.
Bottom line is this:
they will be balanced. maybe not with RP outcomes but with mechanical outcomes-yes i strongly believe that balanced events are the best method of making sure that events are perceived as fair and unbiased.
again, events have evolved when something needs to be resolved. you should NOT rely on them as pillars of the game or your roleplay. thanks and have a great time
Scenario 1:
Germany is played by Ladislav. Belgium is NPC(non-player country).
Ladislav requests an event where Germany gains a province from Belgium. He has done all the RP and is willing to spend eco.
___
Scenario 2:
Germany is played by Ladislav. Belgium is played by Steve.
Ladislav requests an event where Germany gains a province from Belgium. He has done all the RP and is willing to spend eco.
___
Scenario 3:
Germany is played by Ladislav. Belgium is played by Steve.
Steve requests an event where Germany gains a province from Belgium.
___
Scenario 4:
Germany is played by Ladislav. Belgium is played by Steve.
Ladislav scripts the proposal for the event and then emails it to Steve. Steve then requests that event where Germany gains a province from Belgium.
Bottom line is this:
they will be balanced. maybe not with RP outcomes but with mechanical outcomes-yes
i strongly believe that balanced events are the best method of making sure that events are perceived as fair and unbiased.again, events have evolved when something needs to be resolved. you should NOT rely on them as pillars of the game or your roleplay. thanks and have a great time