The 1.3 Wrap-Up, or, How Do I Stop This Thing?

[MichaelM]

This forum has been very helpful in collecting suggestions for the 1.3 patch. So helpful, in fact, that after producing six beta patches, I grew overwhelmed with the sheer volume of suggestions that I wanted to do but knew I probably couldn't.

So, like any other rational person, I solved the problem by ignoring it entirely.

Eventually, an even more rational person (known in these parts as Zeitgeist) suggested an even better solution. (I know! I didn't think it was possible either!)

The plan:

1. Collect all the suggestions and known bugs into one place.
   
2. Estimate how many hours each will take (or "time units" - the main thing is the relative difficulty) and the priority. This will take into account the amount of time I've spent on partially completed tasks.
   
3. Set a definite goal of X hours (I haven't determined this number yet, but it shouldn't change once decided).
   
4. Choose whatever fits into this budget, and no more.
   
5. Do those things and then stop. For the Glory 1.3 is done and FTG gets no more development.

I started to implement this plan with the help of the private beta forum late last year, but we got stuck at step 1.


This is where you can help!

I've set up a wiki page at http://crystalempiregames.com /development/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Main.FTG13Planning (link intentionally broken because I know very little about wiki administration and I don't want to invite spambots).
All the unimplemented suggestions in the main thread (and any others you might know of), plus all unfixed bugs, need to be cataloged there. Once this step is substantially complete, development on 1.3 can finally continue.

What say you?

 

[Kuld von Reyn]

I'll definitely try to pitch in! I do have a couple of questions though:

1) If there is a row for "bugs" and "features", what's the row for "issues" for?

2) How much detail do you want us to go into in the descriptions?

 

[Prinnt]

Ok, im a bit confused, do i have to write down bugs/features here or on the wikipage? Cause on the wikipage i can't do anything.

 

[Nein]

You have to use the wiki's edit function (I assume you have to copy and paste the lines to extend the grid). I would begin too but I have my own questions, which are von Reyn's plus how to express the priority of each issue.

 

[Polak]

Fine,
I will try to be helpful

 

[Andrei Gijgorev]

Cool! I'll be sure to collect stuff from some old threads in the next couple of days. A minor rule change to prevent exploits counts as a feature, yes?

When all items are categorized, maybe someone (I could do this) should open a thread here and post each item separately, and then people can agree/disagree with each post so you can see which feature gets how much support from the community, to help you with prioritizing. I see that autosending merchants only to selected trade centres is already listed; I think that's going to be a very popular one.

 

[MichaelM]

Good start so far!

I'll definitely try to pitch in! I do have a couple of questions though:

1) If there is a row for "bugs" and "features", what's the row for "issues" for?

Someone seems to have already figured this out, but the "bug/feature" column is just the word "Bug" or the word "Feature".

2) How much detail do you want us to go into in the descriptions?

Just a basic summary. Then you can put a link to the specific feature request/bug report post in the link column for more detail.

You have to use the wiki's edit function (I assume you have to copy and paste the lines to extend the grid). I would begin too but I have my own questions, which are von Reyn's plus how to express the priority of each issue.

Don't fill in either the estimate or priority columns for now. Estimate belongs to me and priority belongs to both me and the community as a whole.

 

[Andrei Gijgorev]

I started scouring the Unified List of Wishes thread from the beginning and I noticed that many suggestions aren't phrased clearly or don't take unusual situations into account. For example, the request for a "peace" command (already on the wiki page) does not specify how this command should behave if neither country is leader of its respective alliance. Other suggestions are part of longer forum posts, and even with a link it takes a while to find the relevant part. That's annoying and not very helpful.

So, a proposal: I start a new thread here in this forum and make a post for each feature item in the list on the wiki page, in the same order as on that page. I copy the short description from the list, add any other relevant information, add links to relevant forum posts, and broadly categorize it (new functionality/rule change/moddablity). The post is then linked from the wiki list. For example, the post for the "peace" command would look like this:

(New functionality)

A "peace" command for events.

command = { type = peace which = [TAG] value = [0/1] }

If the country receiving the event is leader of the war alliance (i.e. the first listed participant of attackers/defenders) or value = 0 (default) then peace is made for the whole alliance; otherwise (country not leader and value = 1) the country makes separate peace.

The target country makes peace for its whole alliance iff it is the leader of its alliance.


This request has been mentioned here:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ee-in-a-patch-1-3.491509/page-2#post-11506074
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ee-in-a-patch-1-3.491509/page-3#post-11537221
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ee-in-a-patch-1-3.491509/page-7#post-15722989
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ee-in-a-patch-1-3.491509/page-9#post-16736795

Alternatively, the wiki list could be expanded to allow for better descriptions.

I could also create a thread for each feature request so people could comment on each, but that might be overkill. The wiki list is still short but that's only because I haven't begun listing any of the cool stuff that was suggested in the older threads.

 

[Andrei Gijgorev]

I added a couple more items to the list...

I've said it before (a couple of years ago), and I'm still up for helping with the development if you're okay with it, MichaelM. I could also take over support completely if you really want to get out although that would be a shame. In my opinion EU2/FtG has too much history to just let it fizzle out, especially considering how HoI2/DH is still going strong.

Please consider it, yo.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

It would be good if the AI would disband troops it knows it cannot move back to its own borders once peace has been declared. In fact, it would be good if the AI disbanded a good chunk of its army during peace time anyway, and was somehow able to know when to train more troops in the build-up to war. This would perhaps help stop a number of unnecessary state bankruptcies, as well as better model historical warfare. There's a difference between having small standing garrisons (especially in colonial nations who need to defend against natives) and huge standing armies, and the latter should not be affordable.

Also connected to this point is being able to move leaders around, and particularly when armies are disbanded. This all seems to tie into the inability to move armies back home after a war has ended, which may be something work looking into more generally.

Good luck!

 

[MichaelM]

I've completed estimates for all items that have been gathered so far. Anything else before we move on to prioritizing?

 

[Prinnt]

Actually i have one more thing i would like to add. Basically it would be nice that if when you go over the top right cash symbol, that under monthly balance there would be something like "projected loss until the end of the year" or something which calculates how much money you've lost up until now and also how much will probably be lost until the end of the year if the monthly balance stays as it is. That way one could easily see how much he will probably loss that year and can way better plan his finances. Importend is that i don't mean things like building armies or buildings but just the money you lose as shown by the monthly balance.

 

[Andrei Gijgorev]

I've completed estimates for all items that have been gathered so far. Anything else before we move on to prioritizing?

Brilliant! I'd like to offer my help with anything you need for this patch, be it coding, black-box testing, or whatever else.

Also I noticed that this feature has no priority assigned:

New triggers “ally = TAG” and “enemy = TAG”, or allow -1 instead of tags for alliance/war triggers.

Just for clarification what this means, it's currently not really possible to check if a country receiving an event is allied or at war with a specific other country. The only thing you can do is this:

OR = {
	AND = {
		tag = AAA
		alliance = { country = AAA country = XYZ }
	}
	AND = {
		tag = BBB
		alliance = { country = BBB country = XYZ }
	}
	AND = {
		tag = CCC
		alliance = { country = CCC country = XYZ }
	}
	.
	.
	.
}

It would be a lot easier if you could do this instead:

alliance = { country = -1 country = XYZ }

Or this:

ally = XYZ

Same thing with the war trigger.

 

[MichaelM]

Updated both items in the list.

 

[iloathecapcha]

Brilliant! I'd like to offer my help with anything you need for this patch, be it coding, black-box testing, or whatever else.

@Andrei Gijgorev:
The would be great! LOVE your Victoria map...However, wouldn't you have to sign an NDA from Paradox, etc.?

@MichaelM:

Could you include some Victoria Revolutions features without too much trouble?

 

[Andrei Gijgorev]

@Andrei Gijgorev:
The would be great! LOVE your Victoria map...However, wouldn't you have to sign an NDA from Paradox, etc.?

Depends on what kind of contract Crystal Empire Games has with Paradox. E.g. when I was briefly working on East vs West some years ago I signed an NDA directly with the developer (BL-Logic) that didn't mention Paradox at all, and there was no "etc." involved. In any case, an NDA is generally a legal formality and not an obstacle; it only becomes relevant when it's broken.

 

[MichaelM]

@MichaelM:

Could you include some Victoria Revolutions features without too much trouble?

Some, possibly. It took only a couple of days to adapt the notification system from V:R. But keep in mind anything that requires new or modified graphical elements is at the very edge of my capability at the moment.

 

[Neusidler]

I think someone might have mentioned that issue before, but it would be good to have the oportunity to cede provinces to another countries as gifts (same way as monetary gifts in relationship diplomatic mode). Such given province should enormously improve relations, depending on it's tax value, culture, religion, type of core, etc.

The best thing I can imagine would be some kind of province-trading window, where players could buy/sell/exchange provinces and gold with other countries. But this type of feature seems to be highly complicated to implement, so regard it just as my little fantasy

And, undoubtedly, many of map-makers here are waiting for abolishment of 256 provinces per region limit, and/or having an ability to make bigger maps than 18944 x 7296 px. I'm afraid this improvement also has to include an adapted map utility (probably a new version of Magellan) to handle such big files without limits and restrictions mentioned before.

I know, I know... Just dreamin'


EDIT: Oh, I've almost forgotten - map mode enhancements I'd like to see:

1) Revolt Risk map mode should contain at least 4-5 colors (instead of just 2) for better depiction of rebellion chances - for example: 1-5% RR represented by color X, 5-10% represented by color Y, etc.

2) increase available amount of colors in map mode colorscales from standard 26 (25 for Political & 22 for CoT) to something like 40 or more.

3) maybe it would be better if goods on Economic map mode were depicted by various colors as well? I mean the same way as it works towards religions or cultures.

 

[Prinnt]

About the prioritization, how about everyone makes a post where he can chose features or bugs from the list and then gives points to them? After that, depending on how much one feature or bug got, it will be giving a corresponding prioritization.

 

[Andrei Gijgorev]

That's a good idea. I'd like to see the points (approximately) weighted by complexity though, so if you have e.g. 40 points then you can either pick four features with a complexity of 10, or eight features with a complexity of 5, or two features with a complexity of 10 and ten features with a complexity of 2, etc. Also I'd like to leave the prioritizing of bugs entirely up to MichaelM, considering that this seems to be the last patch ever.

BTW I updated the description for the "nonnational_penalty" feature request (near the bottom of the list) since I realized it was somewhat ambiguously worded – previously it could have been taken to mean that a national core on any such province would exempt you from the combat penalty in all provinces with the same terrain. Not sure if that requires an update on the complexity estimation.