That with the localisation was me. Displayed wrong, but when i checked again a short time ago for some reason it worked in the cultures localisation but the terrains localisation still has the problem.
-
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.
Right, I hadn't considered that. WAD then, I guess.
I still don't think that AI countries without CoTs should impose embargos, though. While the non-association of a country's provinces with an embargoed country's CoTs may hurt the embargoed country somewhat, it does not really help the embargoing country in a significant way. On the other hand, the trade efficiency penalty and the CB actually hurt the embargoing country, especially when an embargo stays in place long after a war is over.
Personally, when playing a late 18th century scenario and getting embargoed by minors I'm either happy about the CB or I simply don't care. It's never more than a minor nuisance. So even if we don't want to prohibit embargoes by player-controlled countries without CoTs, I think at least AI countries shouldn't do it. I've updated the feature request accordingly and removed the estimate since this would be a different solution.
And an unrelated question: Is it theoretically possible to have an empty adjacent.tbl and define all adjacencies in adj_defs.txt instead? I know you can e.g. make land provinces adjacent to a sea province for the purpose of troop movement and colonization by defining a "normal" adjacency there, but I don't know if this really affects all calculations.
Last edited:
Cannot confirm, both terrain and culture are displaying fine for me:
Checked with all three fonts, too. No idea what's causing your issue.
Like i said cultures works but:
I wrote Wüäöste and the above happens. This example is from an selfmade translation but i also tested it with the normal english translation but the result was the same. To be on the safe side i also reinstalled the game but it still happens.
I wrote Wüäöste and the above happens. This example is from an selfmade translation but i also tested it with the normal english translation but the result was the same. To be on the safe side i also reinstalled the game but it still happens.
I'm hovering over the terrain icon on the left in my picture; the cursor isn't displayed but you can see the tooltip box with the terrain name under the culture name. So both definitely work fine for me.
Those weird characters seem vaguely familiar though, I think I may have had a similar problem once way back in EU1 or EU2. Are you sure your file is encoded correctly? It should be CP-1252 but if you use Excel for editing (or anything that's not a real text editor) then you might run into issues where everything is automatically converted to something like UTF-8. The codes of normal characters are identical in CP-1252 and UTF-8 but special characters like äöü etc. have different codes, so you can get weird characters when interpreting a different encoding than is actually used.
Please open your file in a proper text editor (e.g. TextPad or Notepad++) and make sure your files are encoded in CP-1252/Windows-1252. (N++ calls this ANSI for some reason that is beyond my comprehension.)
If this doesn't solve your problem please upload your terrains.csv here and I'll have a look.
Those weird characters seem vaguely familiar though, I think I may have had a similar problem once way back in EU1 or EU2. Are you sure your file is encoded correctly? It should be CP-1252 but if you use Excel for editing (or anything that's not a real text editor) then you might run into issues where everything is automatically converted to something like UTF-8. The codes of normal characters are identical in CP-1252 and UTF-8 but special characters like äöü etc. have different codes, so you can get weird characters when interpreting a different encoding than is actually used.
Please open your file in a proper text editor (e.g. TextPad or Notepad++) and make sure your files are encoded in CP-1252/Windows-1252. (N++ calls this ANSI for some reason that is beyond my comprehension.)
If this doesn't solve your problem please upload your terrains.csv here and I'll have a look.
- 1
Okay, I think I'm done with feature requests...
MichaelM, if it's okay with you I'd like to add a column where I'd classify each feature into one of these categories:
Plus, some of the features that entail rule changes may be controversial. Personally I wouldn't mind e.g. having armies gain experience (as long as they'd also lose it over time) but I could see others being opposed to it. In contrast, attitude towards features that don't change the game rules should at worst be indifferent.
MichaelM, if it's okay with you I'd like to add a column where I'd classify each feature into one of these categories:
- Rule change - impacts gameplay by modifying the game rules (e.g. dynamic cores).
- Modding - Adds options for modders without necessarily modifying the game rules (e.g. new event commands).
- Flavour - Makes the game prettier or improves the GUI, without modifying the game rules (e.g. better tooltips).
Plus, some of the features that entail rule changes may be controversial. Personally I wouldn't mind e.g. having armies gain experience (as long as they'd also lose it over time) but I could see others being opposed to it. In contrast, attitude towards features that don't change the game rules should at worst be indifferent.
Do those cover everything? That could be useful, so go right ahead.
Almost everything. I made the categories slightly more differentiated though:
(As a side note, many of the optional rule changes have suggested default values for defines/parameters, but I'm starting to think it might be better to set the default values to whatever corresponds to the current rules. So e.g. in the case of monthly income that goes straight to the treasury the define could be set to 0 for maximum compatibility. This would also essentially push those features into the "modding" category.)
- Rule change (permanent) = Gameplay changes that cannot be reversed.
- Rule change (optional) = Gameplay changes that can be reversed by modders (e.g. via defines).
- Modding = Options for modders that don't impact gameplay unless deliberately used.
- Flavour (GUI) = Improvements to the graphical user interface.
- Flavour (cosmetic) = Other purely cosmetic changes.
(As a side note, many of the optional rule changes have suggested default values for defines/parameters, but I'm starting to think it might be better to set the default values to whatever corresponds to the current rules. So e.g. in the case of monthly income that goes straight to the treasury the define could be set to 0 for maximum compatibility. This would also essentially push those features into the "modding" category.)
I keep forgetting to ask, but one thing I think that would be absolutely amazing to have would be a 'military control' option, like in HOI/AoD. Mostly because the AI is just effing terrible at managing their armies sometimes, and especially in multiplayer it would be really nice to be able to help keep them from getting obliterated by human opponents.
Is that something that's possible? I imagine it must be, since you can use richelieu or whatever the cheat is to take full control anyways.
Is that something that's possible? I imagine it must be, since you can use richelieu or whatever the cheat is to take full control anyways.
Awesome! I'm really surprised the Vicky map format is listed at 12 points, that's quite the bargain.
For reference, what's your ballpark estimate for the total work you're going to put into 1.3? And does the voting format mean that reported bugs won't be fixed unless also voted for?
For reference, what's your ballpark estimate for the total work you're going to put into 1.3? And does the voting format mean that reported bugs won't be fixed unless also voted for?
I hope this would be implemented in a sensible way, e.g. only for alliances at war with a human player, or only applicable to vassals, or something like that. Otherwise single-player becomes a cakewalk.
It depends on how large the spread of votes is. If everybody wants the same few things, those are what I'll do.
Bugs do not get any special priority.
- 1
SP is already a cake-walk, let's be honest. But yes, it is for MP that I want it. Even if I'm just playing 1v1, it makes things interesting. Besides, just because a feature is there, if you feel its game ruining, you don't have to use it, of course.
Iirc 'richelieu' breaks the game and is prone to causing crashes.
Hell, I don't care even if its something I have to edit into the save file, just the ability to do it without ruining the game is the important point.
Last edited:
Now i would have one last thing to suggest, which isn't a thing MichealM would need to do. Maybe if someone with map modding skills would like to do it, Andrei Gijgorev maybe,
would it be possibly to make some small map changes to the map for the last patch? Im not talking about big game changing things, just aesthetic things like the coastline on some continents or some small changes to some of the siberian provinces.
would it be possibly to make some small map changes to the map for the last patch? Im not talking about big game changing things, just aesthetic things like the coastline on some continents or some small changes to some of the siberian provinces.
Thanks so much for including the military control option, I really feel it would be a great addition, especially for multiplayer.
We used to play a 'war' scenario on an evening when we had a regular player cancel, and it would be nice to be able to play those with fewer players, especially since many of the non-1492 scenarios start at the outset of a conflict, so you could have a good short game of the 30 years war and being able to marshal all the forces of one side or the other in a smaller MP game, or the War of Spanish Succession, that sort of thing.
But I have one more request, it occurs to me and I hope its not too late, but there are some additional diplomatic options in Victoria that would be really useful to have in EU2;
-Declare Colonial War
-Defensive Treaties
-Ability to sell specific provinces
That sort of thing, is that within the realm of possibility? I know the hour is late for making a request, but it only just occurred to me, and I'm almost certain I would be far from alone in wanting to have more flexibility in Diplomatic options.
While I like many of the suggestions on offer, some of them I feel can be accomplished, even if inefficiently with the tools we have available, so to me the priority is to get access to things that we can't do presently.
And finally, I would really love to be able to edit the names of armies/fleets. Its a purely flavour thing, but its available in later P'dox games and I know I can do it via editing the save, but in game much as in HOI/Vic would be fantastic!
Thanks again MichaelM for all your dedicated awesome work on making this such a fantastic game!
We used to play a 'war' scenario on an evening when we had a regular player cancel, and it would be nice to be able to play those with fewer players, especially since many of the non-1492 scenarios start at the outset of a conflict, so you could have a good short game of the 30 years war and being able to marshal all the forces of one side or the other in a smaller MP game, or the War of Spanish Succession, that sort of thing.
But I have one more request, it occurs to me and I hope its not too late, but there are some additional diplomatic options in Victoria that would be really useful to have in EU2;
-Declare Colonial War
-Defensive Treaties
-Ability to sell specific provinces
That sort of thing, is that within the realm of possibility? I know the hour is late for making a request, but it only just occurred to me, and I'm almost certain I would be far from alone in wanting to have more flexibility in Diplomatic options.
While I like many of the suggestions on offer, some of them I feel can be accomplished, even if inefficiently with the tools we have available, so to me the priority is to get access to things that we can't do presently.
And finally, I would really love to be able to edit the names of armies/fleets. Its a purely flavour thing, but its available in later P'dox games and I know I can do it via editing the save, but in game much as in HOI/Vic would be fantastic!
Thanks again MichaelM for all your dedicated awesome work on making this such a fantastic game!
Last edited:
I believe the selling provinces thing has been thrown around a couple of times but for some reason didn't make it into the feature request list? I had added a couple of requests from the older wishlists but I must have missed that one. Selling provinces would be nice, but honestly I'd be happy if we could just get feature #036 (the control priority list) since this would reduce the need to sell provinces in the first place, including for AI countries and without requiring any changes to AI logic.
Why don't you list your "small changes", I can probably say how realistic any of it is.
Also, once I'm done with my own map project I could release a version that would be compatible with the vanilla scenarios. It's just a matter of merging a couple of provinces and maybe adding some PTI. This will probably take a little longer than the 1.3 patch, however.
Modifying the coastline will be a lot of work since the EU2 map does not have any specific projection, so you can't use geospatial data to automatically generate a coastline and would need to draw everything by hand.
Why don't you list your "small changes", I can probably say how realistic any of it is.
Also, once I'm done with my own map project I could release a version that would be compatible with the vanilla scenarios. It's just a matter of merging a couple of provinces and maybe adding some PTI. This will probably take a little longer than the 1.3 patch, however.
With coastline changes i had something like this in mind:
I would like to ask some questions before voting.
First of all, are there any workarounds to any of the current listed issues? e.g. there's a workaround to the proposed command "set_domestic" so that should probably be struck off the list. Are there any others?
First of all, are there any workarounds to any of the current listed issues? e.g. there's a workaround to the proposed command "set_domestic" so that should probably be struck off the list. Are there any others?
I proposed this myself but 18 points seems a lot. Would it cost less if some effects were to be modified without making the whole thing definable/moddable? I think we just need to deal with some unbalanced sliders (like defensive/offensive).
Does this benefit small/tall countries over large/wide empires? If so, I would probably be happy leaving it as it is, even if it's a bug.
This would be a good change but probably not worth 11 points. Are we sure this cannot be dealt with from the current AI files? IIRC EU 2's Interregnum/Aberration mod improved the AI a lot in this regard.
Does this entail loading a map with Vicky map dimensions, number of provinces, province limits, etc.? If so, this is an absolute steal at 12 points!
I'd actually prefer not see the AI response beforehand... I'd prefer having that element of surprise/unpredictability. Not to mention that all this does is aid the player by preventing him from wasting diplomats. In general, I don't think we should be looking to aid the player over the AI.
I would be opposed to this change as well. The player is already heavily advantaged over the AI and military control of his AI allies will make it even easier. And in MP, one could always refrain from inviting allies to wars, no? I know that taking control will be optional, but, given the limited number of changes that can be implemented, this just seems to me a luxury.