All,
We can always edit in the effects for whatever country holds those provinces.
We can always edit in the effects for whatever country holds those provinces.
-
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.
Tonio is right. The first to meet the trigger condition will fire the event. You could even add "year = XXXX" to the trigger, set the start and end dates for the event to 1419 and 1820, and make a few extra copies.
Whoever holds the provinces in year XXXX or later will get it. Then if anyone manages to steal the provinces from that country, they will get the events too.
I have thought about (but never implemented) setting up one event for whomever owns Mexico and another for whomever owns Peru. Thus if you split the possession (between Spain and Portugal, for example), you wont evade the effect; it will be divided between the dividers.
I could also design a trigger that would be "un-dodgeable". If I used a complex "OR" structure, made a few copies of the event, and set up the triggers to prevent multiple-triggering by the same country; anyone owning any gold mine in the Americas (minus Yukon) would get the event. Thus if Spain gave provinces X and Y to Portugal and Z was lost to Holland; all three would get the effect.
Or I could design an event that simply sub-divided the effect. So lets say for the purpose of illustration that we want to give 10 percent inflation and there are 10 gold provinces. We could make 10 events that are province specific and each gives 1 percent inflation. Sure, it would be a clickfest for a few secs for Spain, but it would be foolproof.
Whoever holds the provinces in year XXXX or later will get it. Then if anyone manages to steal the provinces from that country, they will get the events too.
I have thought about (but never implemented) setting up one event for whomever owns Mexico and another for whomever owns Peru. Thus if you split the possession (between Spain and Portugal, for example), you wont evade the effect; it will be divided between the dividers.
I could also design a trigger that would be "un-dodgeable". If I used a complex "OR" structure, made a few copies of the event, and set up the triggers to prevent multiple-triggering by the same country; anyone owning any gold mine in the Americas (minus Yukon) would get the event. Thus if Spain gave provinces X and Y to Portugal and Z was lost to Holland; all three would get the effect.
Or I could design an event that simply sub-divided the effect. So lets say for the purpose of illustration that we want to give 10 percent inflation and there are 10 gold provinces. We could make 10 events that are province specific and each gives 1 percent inflation. Sure, it would be a clickfest for a few secs for Spain, but it would be foolproof.
All this would require a modded eventfile which would hamper our chance of getting subs.
Granted, installing an eventfile is easier than installing a mod and it does open for some nifty possibilities re GMing but I'm still not convinced.
Consider this an open, for anyone interested in gaining Peru and Mexico. Yes, I'm looking at you, Mulliman.
This should reasonably apply to Morocco aswell, btw. *Awaits fury of arguments against adding eventfile, all intelligently researched and backed by an as-yet unnamed entity*
Btw. This is likely the last time I'm able to get online until friday at the earliest. I will deal with complaints, whinges and constructive critizism in the weekend.
Granted, installing an eventfile is easier than installing a mod and it does open for some nifty possibilities re GMing but I'm still not convinced.
Consider this an open, for anyone interested in gaining Peru and Mexico. Yes, I'm looking at you, Mulliman.
This should reasonably apply to Morocco aswell, btw. *Awaits fury of arguments against adding eventfile, all intelligently researched and backed by an as-yet unnamed entity*
Btw. This is likely the last time I'm able to get online until friday at the earliest. I will deal with complaints, whinges and constructive critizism in the weekend.
Slarg,
If you mean Mali gold, wrong. As opposed to making me the wealthiest country, it's kept me in the running with three or four Europeans. It didn't cause inflationary collapse because it was native to West Africa, made up only 1/10 of the gold supply and was pumped into primarily into the Arab and European worlds, where it did. If you mean everyone else should suffer heavy inflation for my controlling Bambuk and Burre, however...
And I'm against adding an event because of subs. It's a bad idea. But, as I said, we could always edit in the effects at the approrpiate time.
If you mean Mali gold, wrong. As opposed to making me the wealthiest country, it's kept me in the running with three or four Europeans. It didn't cause inflationary collapse because it was native to West Africa, made up only 1/10 of the gold supply and was pumped into primarily into the Arab and European worlds, where it did. If you mean everyone else should suffer heavy inflation for my controlling Bambuk and Burre, however...
And I'm against adding an event because of subs. It's a bad idea. But, as I said, we could always edit in the effects at the approrpiate time.
Information edited out to avoid the potential for cheating bastards to use it.HolisticGod said:Slarg,
If you mean Mali gold, wrong. As opposed to making me the wealthiest country, it's kept me in the running with three or four Europeans. It didn't cause inflationary collapse because it was native to West Africa, made up only 1/10 of the gold supply and was pumped into primarily into the Arab and European worlds, where it did. If you mean everyone else should suffer heavy inflation for my controlling Bambuk and Burre, however...
And I'm against adding an event because of subs. It's a bad idea. But, as I said, we could always edit in the effects at the approrpiate time.
Last edited:
*** INFORMATION REMOVED ***
*** TO PROTECT THE WORLD FROM POTENTIAL CHEATING HOSTS ***
Some information is best left unknown
Last edited:
The question for geographicals:
Cape Verde and Ferdando Po are admitted to be spanish by Morocco, they are islands and not part of the Africa continent.
Please answer me if Zanzibar is island or Africa continent.
that would help to settle one dispute, not meaning pure logic, reasons and buying claims relations.
Cape Verde and Ferdando Po are admitted to be spanish by Morocco, they are islands and not part of the Africa continent.
Please answer me if Zanzibar is island or Africa continent.
that would help to settle one dispute, not meaning pure logic, reasons and buying claims relations.
Anton,
For the seventy-fifth and final time, I'm not arguing that Zanzibar is not an island. I'm arguing that our agreement made no provision for island or continental provinces. I don't recall anything about Fernando Po, and I may have said you could keep Cape Verde, but that's irrelevant to the question. Even if we agreed to that-and I may be mixing it up with another game-it was specifically exempted not because it isn't part of Africa but because you wanted to exempt it and said so.
The reason I didn't buy Fernando Po and Cape Verde when I made the original purchase is that, because Slargos is a right bastard, I didn't have a sea route from my naval bases in N Africa to the Fernando Po and I couldn't even see Cape Verde.
By no means is that to suggest that African islands, listed as African in the .csv and recognized as African by every map I've ever seen, are not African. That, Anton, is the primitive argument. It doesn't matter whether they're continental or island. We never specified.
Africa is Africa. You agreed to stay out of it apart from the Cape.
For the seventy-fifth and final time, I'm not arguing that Zanzibar is not an island. I'm arguing that our agreement made no provision for island or continental provinces. I don't recall anything about Fernando Po, and I may have said you could keep Cape Verde, but that's irrelevant to the question. Even if we agreed to that-and I may be mixing it up with another game-it was specifically exempted not because it isn't part of Africa but because you wanted to exempt it and said so.
The reason I didn't buy Fernando Po and Cape Verde when I made the original purchase is that, because Slargos is a right bastard
, I didn't have a sea route from my naval bases in N Africa to the Fernando Po and I couldn't even see Cape Verde. By no means is that to suggest that African islands, listed as African in the .csv and recognized as African by every map I've ever seen, are not African. That, Anton, is the primitive argument. It doesn't matter whether they're continental or island. We never specified.
Africa is Africa. You agreed to stay out of it apart from the Cape.
So, HG, you expanded the argue outside geography, while i ask you to limit at least to geography, because rest is unclear.
I have other reason in my mind - i was never intended to sell them to you So i offered you 3 continental TPs, letting me to stay on islands. That was accepted without the question, and we never discussed the status of Fernando Po and Cape Verde and later proceed the deal. Which i understand only as Morocco doesn`t have claims on these islands.
I just offered you at icq to raise you claims on this islands twice. You didn`t do that.
So tell me now that is yours, and i am wrong owner of them. Africa should belong to Morocco, as far as i see.
Hmm, that means you even didn`t admit my rights on 3 provinces at South Africa ? I`m afraid there are your words in public log : "Karroo is not included in our agreement", which i may understand only as Morocco doesn`t have claims on this lands.
Well, if you put that up, i repeat my icq questions, which were not replied:
1. Spain had abilities to block Morocco way near Kongo, could steal Benin (not 100% chance, but possible), could annex Xhosa, so you`d never know Zanzibar. For what price i could agree to give Zanzibar for you ? Specially meaning i know it, while you don`t.
2. You are arguing that Zanzibar is part of continent and should belong to you, because i agreed to be so kind to let you have african lands (while i dropped right on west africa only in the deal, where i get the revenue). So tell me, for which reason i let you have Ivoria, then Zanzibar and almost whole Africa. I was not threated by anyone, so the single answer on such behavior is being stupid. Do you think i`m this way stupid to give whole continent with two CoTs for free ?
Well, and i thought it is clear that my current lands in Africa (5 provinces in total) is agreed by Morocco, and Morocco doesn`t claim this. But now i doubt it and ask confirmation for each province. For now i only see i give the hand of the friendship and was quite kind to Morocco instead of doing bad things, but instead Morocco is eating my hand and the arm itself.
And i have the feeling, that for dropping claims on west africa, HG can claim now that he doesn`t admit my rights on some current possessions... And he insists on claiming Zanzibar for himself in the "deal" (where Spain didn`t get anythig) not mentioning it.
HolisticGod said:The reason I didn't buy Fernando Po and Cape Verde when I made the original purchase is that, because Slargos is a right bastard
I have other reason in my mind - i was never intended to sell them to you
So i offered you 3 continental TPs, letting me to stay on islands. That was accepted without the question, and we never discussed the status of Fernando Po and Cape Verde and later proceed the deal. Which i understand only as Morocco doesn`t have claims on these islands.I just offered you at icq to raise you claims on this islands twice. You didn`t do that.
HolisticGod said:
So tell me now that is yours, and i am wrong owner of them. Africa should belong to Morocco, as far as i see.
HolisticGod said:
Hmm, that means you even didn`t admit my rights on 3 provinces at South Africa ? I`m afraid there are your words in public log : "Karroo is not included in our agreement", which i may understand only as Morocco doesn`t have claims on this lands.
Well, if you put that up, i repeat my icq questions, which were not replied:
1. Spain had abilities to block Morocco way near Kongo, could steal Benin (not 100% chance, but possible), could annex Xhosa, so you`d never know Zanzibar. For what price i could agree to give Zanzibar for you ? Specially meaning i know it, while you don`t.
2. You are arguing that Zanzibar is part of continent and should belong to you, because i agreed to be so kind to let you have african lands (while i dropped right on west africa only in the deal, where i get the revenue). So tell me, for which reason i let you have Ivoria, then Zanzibar and almost whole Africa. I was not threated by anyone, so the single answer on such behavior is being stupid. Do you think i`m this way stupid to give whole continent with two CoTs for free ?
Well, and i thought it is clear that my current lands in Africa (5 provinces in total) is agreed by Morocco, and Morocco doesn`t claim this. But now i doubt it and ask confirmation for each province. For now i only see i give the hand of the friendship and was quite kind to Morocco instead of doing bad things, but instead Morocco is eating my hand and the arm itself.
And i have the feeling, that for dropping claims on west africa, HG can claim now that he doesn`t admit my rights on some current possessions... And he insists on claiming Zanzibar for himself in the "deal" (where Spain didn`t get anythig) not mentioning it.
Tonioz said:
If the idea of this message is to get the opinion of other countries regarding 'what is Africa', I think that is not relevant. The only thing that matters regarding the words of a deal, is what those who signed thought that the words implied. Since the deal is only binding for them, only their opinions should matter.
Fredrik82 said:
i`ve already told HG, that in my opinion demanding Zanzibar for himself with such, hmmmm, interesting, arguements is only searching for casus belle. So i guess, Fred, you found right answer.
Btw, anyone want to buy Tangier ?
Last edited:
arcorelli said:
Arco, the problem that we discussed it a bit in the game, and no logs of our private talk stored. I remember i agree to let HG to settle at the continent (he aimed at those times to Zimbabwe), being sure i can grab Zanzibar, because that is island and i already owned two african islands, which were not disagreed. So i understood continent this way, and i decided to be kind to Morocco not asking any profit for myself. I didn`t raise question about Zanzibar, because i heard from HG first time the word "continent". I don`t know his reasons not to describe it detailly if he meant islands as the continent.
Right now i found out that HG is thinking other way. He used the arguing, that Zanzibar is not island, but african continent, so should belong to him.
Btw, Slarg, can you tell your order about MT system ? i heard like some modifications ofthis.
Ok, fair enough.TrAsH said:
I thought you were more responsible meaning played from start till i entered the game around seven.
Anyway, is it possible to get compensation for the "idle" period of my nation?
Fred, i think i read like Venice had 500 ducats instead of 2000 ones at the start, which is complete answer of spent money to "nowhere", 500 are not much to raise army and bailiffs. By the way 75MP with qual=6 on 13 provinces looks impressive. And Venice got nice cores.
I`m doing remark only about this part, not the compensation.
I`m doing remark only about this part, not the compensation.
Last edited:
hmm, it would be nice if the GM can post this rather big changes before game starts. Removing cash and decresing tech is indeed rather big edits, and surely the perm player for each nation should be notified by this.
It havnt been much discussion over this game, apperantly it is HG and Slargos that decied everything, without even telling the players about it.
And as this game looks atm, in the final save, i must say that Morrocco and Sweden is by far the winners in this setup. It sure doesnt sound right for me,
and i very much prefer games to be open and fair played, In games were the players decied things, not individual players that happens to be very convincing in his preaches ( ), or the GM himself for that matter.
I'm most displeased so far, mostly for the reason that it has been hard to suggest things, and that the critizism from the players hasnt been taking seriusly. And especially for not posting all the changes for everyone to see and possibly create a discussion over it.
It havnt been much discussion over this game, apperantly it is HG and Slargos that decied everything, without even telling the players about it.
And as this game looks atm, in the final save, i must say that Morrocco and Sweden is by far the winners in this setup. It sure doesnt sound right for me,
and i very much prefer games to be open and fair played, In games were the players decied things, not individual players that happens to be very convincing in his preaches (
), or the GM himself for that matter.I'm most displeased so far, mostly for the reason that it has been hard to suggest things, and that the critizism from the players hasnt been taking seriusly. And especially for not posting all the changes for everyone to see and possibly create a discussion over it.
Well, HG *always* whines about insane edits. Always. And for hours and hours, often. Perhaps Slargos just isn't strong enough to resist him? Poor fellow... Norway has made him weak.
Fred,
You actually got some pretty hefty boosts. And versions of the scenario were relentlessly advertised by Slargos and posted on his board. Can't really complain there.
Anton,
Again with this nonsense about letting me have Ivoria. Let me go through it again for you:
1. You say you could've DOWed in 1494. Fair enough. And I didn't until later and took my time annexing. Of course I did. It was the AI. I didn't raise much of an army and I only sent one through. Had I been competing with you for it, I would've sent my monarch leader and hit it hard.
2. That's irrelevant though. Morocco got its first diplomat in January 1493. DOWed Songhai and took its maps.
3. Being at war, I got a second diplomat in July of 1493, at which time I could have DOWed Benin and taken it before you even knew it was there.
Stop pretending Morocco's existance is some grand gift from Spain.
As I said, you have every right to modify the terms of the agreement, just as I have every right to object and note it. You asked for opinions here and then told me not to expand it beyond your ridiculous assertion that I'm claiming Zanzibar isn't an island. I've already addressed all that, and I leave it to the judgment of anyone interested. However, as I said, I'm not going to war over it. I'll just keep it in mind.
If this was a misunderstanding, fair enough. It's quite possible, given that you've failed to hear me on the Ivoria issue and the Zanzibar issue, and that you believe I'm now excluding South Africa. I said the Cape. I.e. the Cape of Good Hope. The region of South Africa to which we agreed.
I'm not playing for SA and I'm not expanding my aims to include Zanzibar. I thought they already did. With that in mind, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop suggesting I'm merely looking for grounds to go to war. As I've said several times, I'm not, explicitly not, going to war with Spain. Nor am I after Table/Ciskei/etc.
You actually got some pretty hefty boosts. And versions of the scenario were relentlessly advertised by Slargos and posted on his board. Can't really complain there.
Anton,
Again with this nonsense about letting me have Ivoria. Let me go through it again for you:
1. You say you could've DOWed in 1494. Fair enough. And I didn't until later and took my time annexing. Of course I did. It was the AI. I didn't raise much of an army and I only sent one through. Had I been competing with you for it, I would've sent my monarch leader and hit it hard.
2. That's irrelevant though. Morocco got its first diplomat in January 1493. DOWed Songhai and took its maps.
3. Being at war, I got a second diplomat in July of 1493, at which time I could have DOWed Benin and taken it before you even knew it was there.
Stop pretending Morocco's existance is some grand gift from Spain.
As I said, you have every right to modify the terms of the agreement, just as I have every right to object and note it. You asked for opinions here and then told me not to expand it beyond your ridiculous assertion that I'm claiming Zanzibar isn't an island. I've already addressed all that, and I leave it to the judgment of anyone interested. However, as I said, I'm not going to war over it. I'll just keep it in mind.
If this was a misunderstanding, fair enough. It's quite possible, given that you've failed to hear me on the Ivoria issue and the Zanzibar issue, and that you believe I'm now excluding South Africa. I said the Cape. I.e. the Cape of Good Hope. The region of South Africa to which we agreed.
I'm not playing for SA and I'm not expanding my aims to include Zanzibar. I thought they already did. With that in mind, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop suggesting I'm merely looking for grounds to go to war. As I've said several times, I'm not, explicitly not, going to war with Spain. Nor am I after Table/Ciskei/etc.
Hefty boosts??HolisticGod said:
The only significant boost this venice got was extra cores.
Overall, Venice was downgrade as i see it.
Although, i do wonder what hefty boosts Venice would have got if you played em though
As for my post, it wasnt just for Venice sake. It's been limited discussion in this game, and the decisions has been made by you or Slargos. And the rest of us have just been forced to adjust. I consider that extremely unfortunate, especially since this game got ten players....
Fred,
As for Venice, what it got is what I wanted in one of Hive's old games. Cores, N Italian provinces, shipyard, factories, CC, etc. Plus a manpower boost I didn't. The only real penalty was that you lost knowledge of one COT, and that was because I was under the impression you'd have 3 and no one else would. Now that you don't, I'm in favor of editing Isfahan and one of the Indian COTs into your Known Provinces table.
As for the rest, what you mean is that you objected to not having a Brandenburg and merged Sweden, two principles of the game, and because you didn't get your way you're up in arms. However, reasons for that were explicitly stated. The roster was non-negotiable, and I was opposed to Scandinavia too. But it was one of the reasons he started the game.
Any other issues... Slargos said, for weeks, that the file was updated regularly on the forum for general perusal and objections. He went so far as to say that not looking at it and lodging complaints ahead of time would be your own damn fault. And here we are.
It's your own damn fault.
As for Venice, what it got is what I wanted in one of Hive's old games. Cores, N Italian provinces, shipyard, factories, CC, etc. Plus a manpower boost I didn't. The only real penalty was that you lost knowledge of one COT, and that was because I was under the impression you'd have 3 and no one else would. Now that you don't, I'm in favor of editing Isfahan and one of the Indian COTs into your Known Provinces table.
As for the rest, what you mean is that you objected to not having a Brandenburg and merged Sweden, two principles of the game, and because you didn't get your way you're up in arms. However, reasons for that were explicitly stated. The roster was non-negotiable, and I was opposed to Scandinavia too. But it was one of the reasons he started the game.
Any other issues... Slargos said, for weeks, that the file was updated regularly on the forum for general perusal and objections. He went so far as to say that not looking at it and lodging complaints ahead of time would be your own damn fault. And here we are.
It's your own damn fault.