Random Events.

[unmerged(40707)]

Frustrating for me, frustrating for Yodamaster and frustrating for the person who originally argued for the change.

I'm quite sure the good solution is in the definition of "other bonus" if already at +3 (and no difference between MP and SP).

 

[Norrefeldt]

The MP thing is no no relevance here, just curiousa. Alternative events for when you hit the roof (+3) is fine.

I agree Jinnai, that the meaning is reduced if you hit the bottom, it's been said many times now. What about meeting my arguements for once? What is the justice, and the idea of design, behind significantly reducing the number of bad events for unstable countries?
IMO that is a much worse reduction than that the effect is slightly less by negative overflow of stab.

 

[Garbon]

Could not the birth of an heir event seem meaningful if you were at +3 stab as it prevents your nation from getting a possibly negative random event that would have fired in its place?

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Could not the birth of an heir event seem meaningful if you were at +3 stab as it prevents your nation from getting a possibly negative random event that would have fired in its place?

That's exactly what I mean.

 

[Norrefeldt]

Exactly. Players are happy because they get no frustrating +1 stab, while the price they pay is getting bad events instead! :rofl:

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Not me. I'm like "That's just another waste of an event that could have done something useful, like giving me merchants when i have 0 trade.

I mean, if that's the case, why have any triggers on anything, or why have scaling?

 

[Norrefeldt]

Scaling is there to make it more just. This is the opposite.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Same thing with +1 stability at +3. It's not just to have a completely and utterly useless event.

 

[Norrefeldt]

It's not just to have a completely and utterly useless event.

Only if one is blind enough not to realise that you actually risked having a bad event instead, and got a neutral one. Sure, a few players will complain, but I'd be surprised if anyone would prefer having a bad event instead! :rofl:

 

[sturmvogel]

I haven't been able to check and see if this has already been addressed, but it seems that every time that I get the Great Hunt event, I get favorable and unfavorable modifiers for the same country at the same time so that they cancel out. This seems pretty stupid. Can something be done about coding it so the same country doesn't appear on it twice?

Jason

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Only if one is blind enough not to realise that you actually risked having a bad event instead, and got a neutral one. Sure, a few players will complain, but I'd be surprised if anyone would prefer having a bad event instead! :rofl:

Well be surprised. I'd prefer something to change, rather than nothing, even if its bad.

 

[Norrefeldt]

I haven't been able to check and see if this has already been addressed, but it seems that every time that I get the Great Hunt event, I get favorable and unfavorable modifiers for the same country at the same time so that they cancel out. This seems pretty stupid. Can something be done about coding it so the same country doesn't appear on it twice?

Jason

Unfortunately not. If you have few neighbours and close countries, some modifications here are likely to even out.

 

[Garbon]

Well be surprised. I'd prefer something to change, rather than nothing, even if its bad.

I wouldn't. I'd prefer something neutral over a negative change.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

I wouldn't. I'd prefer something neutral over a negative change.

Well neutral, yes, but i'm just saying i'd rather have an event that affects something rather than a useless event, especially for random events.

Anyway redoing events for those with multiple choices to make it balanced for +3 and -3 stability (and single on the former as going below -3 still has some effects, if not as dramatic) will be an undertaking.

While I'm not opposed to it, imo getting more religion as asian regional events is a higher priority imo, but if you have some quick event ideas, go ahead and post them.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Building text.csv for random events, we (Aegnor and I) have a problem with random events. Some different ids refer to same description... It is the case for duplicated events or tweaked triggers for same events and we faced little numbering errors (Conversion of Heretics for example).

I propose to change the numbering scheme as follows (not a revolution, just a required evolution):

New scheme: 9ADDSXXX
A => same as now: 0-5 for scale - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9
DD => counter for duplicated events or tweaked triggers (allows 100 "tweakings" for same event, more than enough)
S => same as now: 0-7 not specific - 8 = AI - 9 = Human
XXX => same as now (last part of id to be combined with S)

Scheme for entries in text.csv:
EVENTNAME_RANDOM<id>
EVENTHIST_RANDOM<id>
ACTIONNAME_RANDOM<id>A
ACTIONNAME_RANDOM<id>B
ACTIONNAME_RANDOM<id>C
ACTIONNAME_RANDOM<id>D

where <id> is SXXX

Example for "Conversion of Heretics":
1st event: 96000001 (wrong 960000 actually)
2nd event: 96010001 (960001 actually)

=> <id> = 0001 is the only one entry in text.csv for "Conversion of Heretics" (and bug is fixed because <id> = 0000 is already used for "Random Revolt").

Logic of random events is not changed but we can fix all bugs an really have a single entry in text.csv for each group of random events.

With this solution, it will be easier to create new versions of events when stab = 3 for example... in next 1.41 version maybe

 

[Toio]

Building text.csv for random events, we (Aegnor and I) have a problem with random events. Some different ids refer to same description... It is the case for duplicated events or tweaked triggers for same events and we faced little numbering errors (Conversion of Heretics for example).

I propose to change the numbering scheme as follows (not a revolution, just a required evolution):

New scheme: 9ADDSXXX
A => same as now: 0-5 for scale - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9
DD => counter for duplicated events or tweaked triggers (allows 100 "tweakings" for same event, more than enough)
S => same as now: 0-7 not specific - 8 = AI - 9 = Human
XXX => same as now (last part of id to be combined with S)

Scheme for entries in text.csv:
EVENTNAME_RANDOM<id>
EVENTHIST_RANDOM<id>
ACTIONNAME_RANDOM<id>A
ACTIONNAME_RANDOM<id>B
ACTIONNAME_RANDOM<id>C
ACTIONNAME_RANDOM<id>D

where <id> is SXXX

Example for "Conversion of Heretics":
1st event: 96000001 (wrong 960000 actually)
2nd event: 96010001 (960001 actually)

=> <id> = 0001 is the only one entry in text.csv for "Conversion of Heretics" (and bug is fixed because <id> = 0000 is already used for "Random Revolt").

Logic of random events is not changed but we can fix all bugs an really have a single entry in text.csv for each group of random events.

With this solution, it will be easier to create new versions of events when stab = 3 for example... in next 1.41 version maybe

good idea,
maybe you can also add some triggers to the Conversion of Heretics like,
NOT = { religion = pagan }
and
NOT = { religion = buddism }

as an example

 

[Norrefeldt]

All good ideas YodaMaster & Aegnor!

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Just to clarify my proposition, here is the result of renumbering for "Colonial Uprising":

OldId   NewId
920049  92000049
920050  92010049
930049  93000049
930050  93010049
940049  94000049
940050  94010049
950049  95000049
950050  95010049

 

[Norrefeldt]

Enforcement of Jizya

There's a problem with this event, but since the changes I suggest are rather heavy I have moved it from the bug thread.

event = {
	id = 910088
	trigger = {
		religion = sunni
		continent = asia
		countrysize = 4
		NOT = { countrysize = 9 }
		domestic = { type = innovative value = 2 }
		NOT = { domestic = { type = innovative value = 10 } }
	}
	random = yes
	name = "Enforcement of Jizya"
	desc = "Islam in South Asia often dropped or did not enforce the imposition of Jizya, a tax on Zimmis, non-believers who are protected by the state. Instead, in order to smooth relations with the dominantly Hindu populations, they classified them as Musta'min, protected non-Muslims exempt from Jizya. In history, however, there was always a movement from conservative factions to impose Jizya. Imposing it would bring revolts, and refusing to do so would build trust with the Hindu community, while losing it with elements of the Islamic elite."
	style = 0
	action_a = {
		name = "Don't enforce Jizya"
		command = { type = provincetax which = -1 value = 1 }
		command = { type = trade value = -75 }
		command = { type = infra value = -75 }
		command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = 1 } 
		command = { type = missionaries value = -1 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "Listen to the clerics"
		command = { type = stability value = -1 }
		command = { type = treasury value = 75 }
		command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = -1 } 
		command = { type = religiousrevolt which = -1 }
	}
}

It's ment to trigger for South Asian countries with Hindu populations, but also affect the Central Asia and Middle East, where it has no historical basis. The options are switched for shiites, I assume since people consider shiites more conservative (?) today. There's no historical reason for a separation beween shiite and sunni, besides, there are very few, if any shiite states in hindu areas. The only way to have it affect only hindu provinces as it should is to check religion in one province, and if it's hindu option a will lower taxes in it, and in option b there will instead be a revolt in that province. The states it historically happened to are mostly small, so there's a chance to hit a hindu province, and it's better that the event is rare, than having it for states without hindus.

Scaling isn't possible, and the DP effects are the most important anyway, and it's not scaled. Having the same DP effects for both large and small countries is logical here, since the religious discussion on the topic wouldn't affect a small nation less or more than a big one.

So, I suggest all events on this topic is replaced by only one event:

event = {
	id = 910088
	trigger = {
		OR = {
			religion = sunni
			religion = shiite
		}			
		provincereligion = { province = -1 data = hinduism }
		continent = asia
		domestic = { type = innovative value = 2 }
	}
	random = yes
	name = "Enforcement of Jizya"
	desc = "Islam in South Asia often dropped or did not enforce the imposition of Jizya, a tax on Zimmis, non-believers who are protected by the state. Instead, in order to smooth relations with the dominantly Hindu populations, they classified them as Musta'min, protected non-Muslims exempt from Jizya. In history, however, there was always a movement from conservative factions to impose Jizya. Imposing it would bring revolts, and refusing to do so would build trust with the Hindu community, while losing it with elements of the Islamic elite."
	style = 0
	action_a = {
		name = "Don't enforce Jizya"
		command = { type = provincetax which = -3 value = 1 }
		command = { type = trade value = -100 }
		command = { type = infra value = -100 }
		command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = 1 } 
		command = { type = missionaries value = -1 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "Listen to the clerics"
		command = { type = stability value = -1 }
		command = { type = treasury value = 50 }
		command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = -1 } 
		command = { type = religiousrevolt which = -3 }
	}
}

 

[unmerged(40707)]

You mean

		OR = {
			religion = sunni
			religion = [COLOR=gold]shiite[/COLOR]
		}

aren't you?