VIP - Closed discussions of Old Versions

[Tunch Khan]

I have an educational reform event that gives {type = education_modifier value = 20}
The event provides a major shift in one country's system that increases effectiveness, quantity and quality of educational institutes. I have doubts about the amount of x=20 but i believe we should, this way or another, provide a bonus to the receiving country. What would you suggest?

 

[unmerged(6766)]

Agreed! I had been using them alot for random events so that any country can get it, but I'm not sure that AI countries get random events? I mean I know they do, but I'm not sure.... hmmm... anyway I agree !

 

[Aragos]

well, i don't think adding +10 ORG ONLY during the ACW will unbalance much the game... if only CSA and USA are fighting... but consider what happens if any major power is allied to any of them...
but anyway, that will not be much of a problem...

The real problem are the economic modifications that i am seeing... i have seen more than 50 events that are granting special bonuses to factories for some countries. o

I see your point
A matter of fact, we discussed this on the NA thread a while back, about how the game played with lots of new NA events, but no new ones anywhere else...

 

[Theodotus1]

The General's points are all valid. I have been wary of these issues myself.

The capitalist increases in Texas referred to in the post beginning this thread are actually only temporary, and end via an event before the end of the game. However, the increases are probably more generous than they need to be to simulate historical flow.

I see nothing wrong with temporary increases in the various factors flagged by the General. I do agree that permanent increases can be problematic, and should be kept to very low factors, if ever used.

However, when it comes to the issue of balance, I am not in favor of ignoring history. This game is not balanced to begin with, at least terms of starting positions. It's not a scenario in which all player countries are equally powerful to begin with. (There is such a game -- its called Risk.) Nor should countries be prevented from gaining historical benefits just because other countries don't get the same. And I think that for certain historical events, an increase in production capacity is warranted, as much as for inventions. (Sometimes it's not an invention that improves production capacity, but improved facilities or the existence of symbiotic industries in close economic proximity.) I also will require the player to pay for the production gain, while allowing a B option for refusal.

I do intend to go back through the events I've written and tone down the productivity gains and such -- from 5% to 1%, for example. (And there are a few population boom events that are going to get switched to life rating increases.)

 

[Theodotus1]

well, i don't think adding +10 ORG ONLY during the ACW will unbalance much the game... if only CSA and USA are fighting... but consider what happens if any major power is allied to any of them...
but anyway, that will not be much of a problem...

The real problem are the economic modifications that i am seeing... i have seen more than 50 events that are granting special bonuses to factories for some countries. o

Historically, had another country's armies run up against the North American ACW armies, I doubt they'd have faired very well, at least after the Americans had been at war for a couple of years or so. (Maybe that's chauvenistic view, but I've yet to hear a good argument opposing it.) Therefore, I don't have a problem with temporary increases during this period.

 

[unmerged(5323)]

I disagree. Paradox used a number of theese commands in their events so why shouldn`t we?

A few examples; the "Rapid loss of Authority" (5902), "Unrest in Russia" (28537) or Latin Monetary Union (29900).

I agree we should be very careful when using theese commands and only resort to them when something can not be simulated with other more clasical commands. However I can not accept a complete and throughout ignore of theese commands in all possible situations and events.

 

[unmerged(5323)]

Historically, had another country's armies run up against the North American ACW armies, I doubt they'd have faired very well, at least after the Americans had been at war for a couple of years or so. (Maybe that's chauvenistic view, but I've yet to hear a good argument opposing it.) Therefore, I don't have a problem with temporary increases during this period.

That another country`s armies wouldn`t have faired verry well against the Union army right after the ACW is probably correct (just like the US army did`t fair very well against the German army in 1918) however this can be and is simulated by the game itself, as units gain experience in fighting and become stronger this way, so I don`t see a particular reason for an increase in ORG.

 

[aprof]

I disagree. Paradox used a number of theese commands in their events so why shouldn`t we?

A few examples; the "Rapid loss of Authority" (5902), "Unrest in Russia" (28537) or Latin Monetary Union (29900).

I agree we should be very careful when using theese commands and only resort to them when something can not be simulated with other more clasical commands. However I can not accept a complete and throughout ignore of theese commands in all possible situations and events.

Having taken some time to look at my events and the commands that we are considering taking out of use, it would seem that many events can be rewritten without much loss of overall effect (at least many of mine can).

However, I must agree with Hrast that some events cannot be kept if we must completely forego their use. Surely we can accept their use in limited ways.

 

[pimparel]

However, I must agree with Hrast that some events cannot be kept if we must completely forego their use. Surely we can accept their use in limited ways.

Yeah, if most of them have a counter-effect in a reasonable time period. I am in favor of using ALL instruments available. However the problem here is not the command is the ............MODDERS.............. We need to be reasonable. That's it.

The chain events of Italy reunification is reasonable. I made an event based on that, and with a counter-event later. Another with RR Construction MOD, there was a time in BRZ history that was more open to its construction, due a Major historical figure. So I think that this command is better than poping a random RR.

It's about been reasonable.

 

[Theodotus1]

I think total elimination from use is not necessary. But for most events it probably is appropriate for the effect to be relatively small, if not marginal. On the other hand, events by definition simulate things that did historically have enough effect that they've been remembered. So they have to have some effect.

I would be even more supportive of the General's concerns had I not experienced a random event in which seemingly every type of factory and RGO lost 5% of productive capacity. If the argument then is that production increases and decreases shouldn't be used, or should be reserved only for inventions, I don't agree, because Paradox didn't impose such a limit on its own construction of events. (The event I experienced was based on a retraction in the farm economy, and was in no way related to technology or invention.)

On the other hand, if the argument is that these commands can be unfairly powerful in their effects, then I agree, and the question becomes what level of effect is appropriate? (Using the Paradox farm retraction event as a guide, a 5% production capacty loss was deemed appropriate by Paradox to simulate a significant decline. Which is an indication that most events using such a command should make any change something akin 1%, since 5% was used to simulate something fairly profound.) The problem thus becomes one of degree.

(On a related topic, I think that prestige gain can be at least as much of a problem as the General's concerns. Prestige determines such things as access to the world market, and can therefore be more imbalancing than added productivity. Yet I've seen no consensus on what something should be worth in terms of prestige. I did experience a Paradox event in which I hired a composer and gained 5 prestige for sponsering an immortal piece of music. So if a symphony is worth 5 prestige, what should other things be worth? If a political assassination, which no one has any control over or input into, costs what it does, what is a declaration of independence worth?)

 

[Derek Pullem]

Its almost impossible to declare what is reasonable until you play the game and test the events together. VIP is great but someone needs to but together a global event package for all nations and then test that package.

+25 prestige for a cultural event might be right if the nation historically was on the up (say Japan or an industrialising Korea) but would be completely inappropriate for a backwater country like Paraguay.

Writing the events is the easy bit - testing takes time

 

[Theodotus1]

To futher address the topic:

One thing about the railroad events for Texas is that they do retract the capitalist income increases via event some years later. Additionally, the capitalist income increases were not related to just building the railroad in a particular location, but to the economic incentives doled out in massive quantities by the government. The events simulate not just the building of the railroads, but large-scale redirection of economic variables in order to benefit a select segment of the population. (In Texas' case, the state gave away so much land that it later discovered it was short 8 million acres it still owed people. We are not talking about small change.)

When it comes to issues of balance -- frankly, it was unfortunate decisions regarding balance that gave a lot of impetus to this project in the first place. The decision not to include any sort of mechanism for something as fundamental to the course of events as the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, reportedly because it was felt to be imbalancing in multiplayer, is not a precedent we should seek to emulate. (By that same reasoning, they should have left out the German and Italian unification events, because those might be unfair to a player, too, and both places can conceivably be unified via conquest.) The beauty of the game is that its design is able to simulate complexities and imbalances, at least to some extent.

Beyond that, if balance were a paramount issue in Victoria then no uncivilized country would be banned from becoming civilized. This is not a game in which the countries were designed to be equal. Why then prohibit certain types of event effects simply because only one country is benefited? There is no logic to such an approach.

Balance does not require the prohibition of any particular effect. It does require supreme attention to the level of effect used.

EDIT: Upon looking at the General's post again, the thing that strikes me about the increases in the Texas events cited is not that there were increases, but that they added up to as much as they did. I'm going to tune them down by 80-90% where they're not removed -- because it's sufficient for most events that there be some relevant effect, but that effect doesn't have to be of any particular magnitude.

One thing that does come to mind, though -- inventions are themselves events. They are not a different type of game mechanic. Commands should not therefore be limited only to inventions just because they have been used with inventions (because Paradox did not so limit the events they wrote).

 

[Theodotus1]

Its almost impossible to declare what is reasonable until you play the game and test the events together. VIP is great but someone needs to but together a global event package for all nations and then test that package.

+25 prestige for a cultural event might be right if the nation historically was on the up (say Japan or an industrialising Korea) but would be completely inappropriate for a backwater country like Paraguay.

Writing the events is the easy bit - testing takes time

Truer words have yet to be spoken.

+25 prestige is almost the value of the province of Lubbock when it's claimed as a colony. Therefore, one can confidently assign that prestige gain to anything of equal importance to the acquisition of Lubbock. (Being a native Texan, my personal opinion then is that the symphony event should grant more than +25 prestige, but then again I don't hail from the panhandle.)

 

[Theodotus1]

What I do sense from the General's posts is that he's not opposed to temporary effects, just permanent ones. And with this I agree in general. But most event effects can be made temporary.

I'm going to put a hold on testing temporarily while I rewrite events to tone them down and to replace as many of the offending commands as I can find good replacements for.

 

[Theodotus1]

After having reread the General's initial post, I want to reiterate that we should be extremely careful of just doling out prestige to simulate things. Large prestige point gains that no one else has access to or ability to replicate seem to me to be at least as much of an imbalance danger as do other possible benefits.

 

[unmerged(23954)]

agreed. Balance is king here... a little of everything, and never too much in total. When VIP is assembled someday and can be tested, then we can start trying to put in larger bonuses where it might seem prudent/feasible/historically correct.

 

[JRaup]

Looks like just about everyone is on the same page here. Wow. That's a good thing BTW. :rofl:

As has been pointed out, it's hard to judge balance issues until the whole VIp is together, and the interactions of events, AIs, and what not can be seen in actual game play. Right now, I've only tested my event to make sure they fire correctly, and have not even looked at any balance issue, as there aren't any other events on my system (yet).

There's a lot of great work going on here, with the POP mod, the NA thread (slow down a bit will ya? ), as well as some economic mods, and OHgamer's AI drafts. So, until it's all together, and we see how it runs, some things should be tabled until then. Though I do agree with the G-man's principles on the matter. Temporary boosts to represent boom times and other economic swings should be OK, even desirable. But try to limit the permanent economic and military boosts.

 

[Theodotus1]

agreed. Balance is king here... a little of everything, and never too much in total. When VIP is assembled someday and can be tested, then we can start trying to put in larger bonuses where it might seem prudent/feasible/historically correct.

Amen.

 

[Generalisimo]

After having reread the General's initial post, I want to reiterate that we should be extremely careful of just doling out prestige to simulate things. Large prestige point gains that no one else has access to or ability to replicate seem to me to be at least as much of an imbalance danger as do other possible benefits.

with "prestige gains" i meant that you can easilly make an event that says:
"Pepe Gonzalez invented the best chair of the world for 1850"
+10 eff. for furniture factories
into:
"Pepe Gonzalez invented the best chair of the world for 1850"
+2 prestige

do you see my point?

 

[Generalisimo]

Though I do agree with the G-man's principles on the matter. Temporary boosts to represent boom times and other economic swings should be OK, even desirable. But try to limit the permanent economic and military boosts.

that resumes exactly my idea... if all the people starts creating events with permanent effects over the economy, we will have a totally unbalanced game.