pimparel said:
And thus what should be done then, other than giving them some army techs by event a few years earlier?
-
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.
- Status
And thus what should be done then, other than giving them some army techs by event a few years earlier?
Russia
Russia does not need army techs earlier! Austria needs to be hopeless!
And Prussia goes to war with Austria much too often.
Mike
Russia does not need army techs earlier! Austria needs to be hopeless!
And Prussia goes to war with Austria much too often.
Mike
Minor bug (I do not know if this is already been reported)
The indian minor Panjab's state religion is Sunni - even though all of its population is Hindu... is this correct?
The indian minor Panjab's state religion is Sunni - even though all of its population is Hindu... is this correct?
Schnee0 said:
Actually the problem is more complex - the ruling elite of Punjab were the Sikhs, whose faith is neither Muslim nor Hindu (Sikhism is, to put it in simplest terms, a syncretic blend of the two faiths) with the population of the core region of Punjab split around 1/3 Sikh, 1/3 Hindu and 1/3 Muslim. Unfortunately the Paradox gods did not include Sikh as a religion so there is no way to include them in which is problematic because the Sikhs after the British conquest became one of the pillars of the British Raj. Unfortunately I don't think we can add religions - they are hardcoded I think. I posted this in the bugs section back in December but nothing seems to have come of it. As one of my best friends is Sikh needless to say I am more atune to the issue than most people.
\Scythe said:
I'm not sure about this. In all my games so far, I have seen a wide variety of outcomes in Europe (VIP0.11, 1.03). Everything from a super-Germany (had most of Western Europe and Euroopean Russia!), to Ottoman dominance, to a Red tide gushing from the Russian steppes (that was interesting). the outcome of things like the Crimean War depend more on the diplomatic situation than techs or battles. Example: If Russia and France have good relations (+75 or more), when the war starts, France is more likely to bail out early, while the Ottomans and Brits stick it out.
Of course the usual caveats apply here.
Scythe said:
Oh...so you wan't stronger russians? No events or other modifications are needed, i'll give you russians who steamroll rest of europe in Crimean war...giving them free tech would be outrageous.
Revolts arn't so hard to overcome...so, i'll keep you posted how things work out on the AI front.
A simple story to relate my grievances about the texas events...So I just played a game as texas from 1836-1840. In this game I ended with #1 prestiege (about 150) and #12 military (a rating of 12). I did nothing in this game but sit there and trade one claim with the us. Took a bunch of "a" choices in events and didn't build any factories or promote any POPs. I didn't adjust my sliders settings and only set the world market once in 1836. I fought no wars other than taking two provinces from mexico in the original one. My overall rating in febuary of 1840 was 4!!!!!? This is what is wrong with writing masses of events for minor countries. Texas should at most be happy to be alive in 1840. Not 4th in the world in ranking...By there very nature people tend to write events which are positive and help countries and thus when one country has many many events it tends to unbalance the game. Anyway just my attempt to show that all this focus is not necessarily helping the mod any.
I am not inteding to discourage anyone from writing events...just try to write good ones that contribute to the game. Texas had over ten commanche raid events and ten piracy events in four years...Giving anything like this sort of detail to the UK and it would have around 50 events a month. Obviously this is not going to be done so why not scale back the events to the level of abstraction all nations will be at. I would just hate to see texas turn into another byzantium where people (in my eyes) waste hours and hours making events which in the grand scheme of things mean very little. Sorry to rant it is 3AM and I should be in bed...one event mentioned that 3 people had died in said raid...I bet 3 people died a day in raids in the later BE...
And before anyone says well go write events for other countries, I will respond by saying thats not the answer. I shouldn't have to go out and write events for every country giving it money and 100 prestiege in the first 5 years, just so France can keep up with texas... The game is hard enough to balance as it is...
I am not inteding to discourage anyone from writing events...just try to write good ones that contribute to the game. Texas had over ten commanche raid events and ten piracy events in four years...Giving anything like this sort of detail to the UK and it would have around 50 events a month. Obviously this is not going to be done so why not scale back the events to the level of abstraction all nations will be at. I would just hate to see texas turn into another byzantium where people (in my eyes) waste hours and hours making events which in the grand scheme of things mean very little. Sorry to rant it is 3AM and I should be in bed...one event mentioned that 3 people had died in said raid...I bet 3 people died a day in raids in the later BE...
And before anyone says well go write events for other countries, I will respond by saying thats not the answer. I shouldn't have to go out and write events for every country giving it money and 100 prestiege in the first 5 years, just so France can keep up with texas... The game is hard enough to balance as it is...
Interesting post, and has quite direct implications on what I'm working on for Norway.
Using Norway as an example, the way I see it, is that the more events, the better; it will make it more interesting to play it. However, those events should not lead to anything else than Norway normally being a fairly backwater, independant, European nation in 1920, with some events tailored for deviations (such as what would happen if Norway conquered Sweden and Denmark
)
You don't need lots of detailed events for UK or Prussia or other biggies, since they have lots of major stuff happening that makes them interesting to play. For minors, however, having just a few country-specific events over the course of a GC seems, well, boring.
Rafiki
Using Norway as an example, the way I see it, is that the more events, the better; it will make it more interesting to play it. However, those events should not lead to anything else than Norway normally being a fairly backwater, independant, European nation in 1920, with some events tailored for deviations (such as what would happen if Norway conquered Sweden and Denmark
)You don't need lots of detailed events for UK or Prussia or other biggies, since they have lots of major stuff happening that makes them interesting to play. For minors, however, having just a few country-specific events over the course of a GC seems, well, boring.
Rafiki
I would prefer to only have flavor events, and a game engine and AI good enough to do without major events. Sadly Victoria is still not polished enough to make this possible.
Things that are missing and must be handled with major events are trade policies (for Opium war, etc.), Secession without a rebel uprising first (Civil war) and diplomatic unification processes (Germany).
Things that are missing and must be handled with major events are trade policies (for Opium war, etc.), Secession without a rebel uprising first (Civil war) and diplomatic unification processes (Germany).
i´m a big fan of events and i enjoy also the smaller ones. as raifki pointed out it adds to the fun of playing a minor when theres something happening, historic or semi and adjusted to the individual nation. so if there are raids for texas, fine ill take it. writing dozens of events for minors isnt wasting time IMHO.
OTOH i see bacephalus point. theres aboslutely no reason for texas being no 4! so what its all about? balance the events!
OTOH i see bacephalus point. theres aboslutely no reason for texas being no 4! so what its all about? balance the events!
well, Theodotus1 already explained what happens with texas... i suggest you read that before complaining.weird god said:i´m a big fan of events and i enjoy also the smaller ones. as raifki pointed out it adds to the fun of playing a minor when theres something happening, historic or semi and adjusted to the individual nation. so if there are raids for texas, fine ill take it. writing dozens of events for minors isnt wasting time IMHO.
OTOH i see bacephalus point. theres aboslutely no reason for texas being no 4! so what its all about? balance the events!
Generalisimo said:well, Theodotus1 already explained what happens with texas... i suggest you read that before complaining.
But this could be used by a clever player, as an exploit, to have an early access to the WM.
by the way, Lycortas was right, in the Italian Unification chain, the Austrian peace event was triggering a Mexican event (213...) instead of the Sardinian one (253...)... :rofl:
Becephalus said:
Things will be different in 0.2 with Texas. Not only have event strings been condensed, but the Texas beginning setup has been reverted to the historical, rather than the ahistorical version I was previously testing (which now results only from the Mexican B choice on the San Jacinto event -- sorry to have made you all guinea pigs.) AI Texas now does very little other than survive in most cases, though a player can do better than just that. (Your concern about so many events has been addressed with streamlined event trees, and there are significantly fewer Texas events now. Streamlining will continue, as needed.)
Beyond this, your understanding of why Texas did so well previously is not accurate. The reason for the high prestige and world ranking was annexation of Colorado, not the events. This is no longer generally an option for Texas, and certainly not in 1836, as before. (Unless Mexico actually recognizes the Treaty of Velasco, a 5% chance.)
I think this is the first time you've mentioned any specific criticisms (as opposed to just saying that you don't like things), and for that I thank you. These criticisms will be addressed, if they haven't already been. (A lot of work is going on that you're not seeing.)
(As for your concern about the native raid that killed three people -- for Texas at the time that was a major happening. For Texas in the game, each Indian battle event increases native POP militancy for the appropriate culture by 1, so each battle brings your native POPs closer to revolt in the game. The reservation events and certain climactic defeats reduce native POP militancy. The overall scheme eventually results in the player fighting his own war against his own native POPs. So these are more than just simple flavor events, though they may appear to be only simple flavor events to people who don't watch very carefully. More will be done with them in the future, in terms of metaevents that allow the player some choice regarding policy toward the natives -- but a working add_pop command will be necessary for those plans.)
If you have any other specific complaints, please let me know. They are very useful, as long as they give me something to go on.
Last edited:
This thread has shifted its focus from 'Bugs' to 'Discussion' of our vision of events. To my mind that is fine, as more discussion on how many and what kind of events to be included in VIP helps us all work toward a similar goal.
My impulse is to write events that capture the spirit or flavor of the period - thus flavor events are valuable - and necessary. If we forego all flavor events and have a minimum of major events for Victoria it makes me ask why don't I go back to playing Civilization? I'd get as much 'period' from CIV3 as from a stripped down Victoria.
However I will say, we must not be too narrow in focus, nor comprehensive in our events. I much prefer to have broader events that can lead the game toward 'historical' outcomes but do not lock the player into following the historical course. I've tried to provide an escape for the player from any historical event chain (especially in the events I've been doing recently). I also respect the logical alternative timelines that have been/can be developed for the revolter nations.
I see the value of events to serve some useful game purposes. First, they can partially address game imbalances among the countries - giving small boosts to prestige, literacy, industry etc. to those minor countries that will fall too far behind if run solely by the ai. Second, they partially serve as direction to the AI played countries. Absolutely scripted events forcing a particular direction can be avoided through the 'random' trigger and 'ai_chance' command and we should work to avoid such scripted directions. (However I don't think events should replace the ai, nor should we keep adding events when proper balancing elsewhere is necessary.) Third and maybe most importantly, they aid replayability of the game. Events and event chains with several outcomes provide a measure of unpredictability to the game. I can't see that as anything but good for Victoria.
But then, y'all probably already know that.
(Perhaps we need to relabel this thread to VIP - Discussion and start another as VIP Bugs Reporting?)
My impulse is to write events that capture the spirit or flavor of the period - thus flavor events are valuable - and necessary. If we forego all flavor events and have a minimum of major events for Victoria it makes me ask why don't I go back to playing Civilization? I'd get as much 'period' from CIV3 as from a stripped down Victoria.
However I will say, we must not be too narrow in focus, nor comprehensive in our events. I much prefer to have broader events that can lead the game toward 'historical' outcomes but do not lock the player into following the historical course. I've tried to provide an escape for the player from any historical event chain (especially in the events I've been doing recently). I also respect the logical alternative timelines that have been/can be developed for the revolter nations.
I see the value of events to serve some useful game purposes. First, they can partially address game imbalances among the countries - giving small boosts to prestige, literacy, industry etc. to those minor countries that will fall too far behind if run solely by the ai. Second, they partially serve as direction to the AI played countries. Absolutely scripted events forcing a particular direction can be avoided through the 'random' trigger and 'ai_chance' command and we should work to avoid such scripted directions. (However I don't think events should replace the ai, nor should we keep adding events when proper balancing elsewhere is necessary.) Third and maybe most importantly, they aid replayability of the game. Events and event chains with several outcomes provide a measure of unpredictability to the game. I can't see that as anything but good for Victoria.
But then, y'all probably already know that.
(Perhaps we need to relabel this thread to VIP - Discussion and start another as VIP Bugs Reporting?)
We have more than 20 threads to follow... why open a new one?aprof said:
About the rest, i completelly agree with you.
OHgamer said:
Maybe we should ask Paradox to add the Sikhism and the Mormonism in a future patch like they did adding some more cultures (like the Brazilian culture).
Words from a real Mormon!
If you do ask, make sure to ask for the Mormon religion - the culture type is the same as anyone else (yankee/dixie/spanish/whatever)... there is no Mormon culture, it is just a religion.
If you do ask, make sure to ask for the Mormon religion - the culture type is the same as anyone else (yankee/dixie/spanish/whatever)... there is no Mormon culture, it is just a religion.
- Status