VIP - Closed discussions of Old Versions

[Theodotus1]

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.

I've never been happy with Mormon POPs being considered "pagan."

 

[unmerged(8351)]

It was my impression that religion hasabsolutely no effect on gameplay anyway so who cares what religions POPs are...

 

[PMLF]

It was my impression that religion hasabsolutely no effect on gameplay anyway so who cares what religions POPs are...

I do, because it increases the feeling of historical realism when playing the game.

 

[JRaup]

It was my impression that religion hasabsolutely no effect on gameplay anyway so who cares what religions POPs are...

Ah, but it can have an effect. Same as culture in fact. It's an option that allows for religious strife (and immigration/emigration), that makes events and trends far more historical. Just because you haven't seen any effect doesn't mean there isn't one. In fact, some of the more neglected nations will have events and such that revolve around religion, and not culture/ethnicity. It's early yet in VIP's development, so to dismiss an whole aspect of the game is misplaced IMO.

 

[unmerged(8351)]

I guess I just meant that I do not see adding the sihks or moromons as that pressing giving that this will CURRENTLY change nothign about the game

 

[OHgamer]

I guess I just meant that I do not see adding the sihks or moromons as that pressing giving that this will CURRENTLY change nothign about the game

But for a game that markets itelf as a game of historical re-enactment and participation, to make some rather basic errors is problematical and should be fixed. My Sikh friend, for example, was more than a bit taken aback to see the great state of Ranjit Singh in the Panjab labeled as Sunni, the religious affiliation of the Mughal Empire which did its best in the eighteenth century to destroy the Sikhs.

 

[unmerged(8351)]

fair enough I know how important this type of stuff can be, no offense wa intended

(sometimes I get so focused on gameplay that I forget about the "garnish")

 

[C.N.]

IF Paradox doesn't give us new religions in the game, maybe the Sikhs should be changed from Sunni to something else that isn't used by the neighbouring states? Pagan, maybe?

 

[OriginalRafiki]

There are events and inventions and such that affect religious minorities/majorities, so it does have an effects in the game.

Rafiki

 

[JRaup]

IF Paradox doesn't give us new religions in the game, maybe the Sikhs should be changed from Sunni to something else that isn't used by the neighbouring states? Pagan, maybe?

I suppose that could be done, if no other option comes forward. though I have a problem labeling the Sikh's as "pagan." same for the Mormons. Though if I have to choose one, I'd take the sikh's, as they play a more significant role in game terms than the Mormons.

 

[JRaup]

I guess I just meant that I do not see adding the sihks or moromons as that pressing giving that this will CURRENTLY change nothign about the game

Well, I can agree with that about the Mormons, but I would disagree about the Sikh's. Given the role the Sikh's play in the game's time frame, on behalf of the British Empire, to have over looked them, or more to the point, mislabeled them as Sunnis, is rather a gross over sight. Merely by adding the Sikh's inot the game, we change the whole dynamic in India, and British efforts for the consolidation of the Raj (is there an event about this yet? If not, there should be). Then we can have the various British units of sikh's that fought in nearly every war of the period for Britain (India, china, sudan, etc). And it will make handling teh Indian Mutiny much easier to model in game (just to give the Brits even more problems to deal with, so they can't run away with the game).

Ok, ok, I'll get off my white charger now.... :rofl:

 

[unmerged(5323)]

In light of an attempt I noticed of writting an event for declaring a war for a colony in a certain regional thread, I would like to ask what should be our guidance on wars through events?

In my opinion only more important wars that changed the map in civilised world significantly or meant a significant shift in balance of power should be declared by events (and done so with a healthy amount of triggers).

But defenitley not colonial wars.

It is my opinion that with this aproach of writing an event for every obscure war that happened we will worsen not improve the game.

Not to mention this way aggressivness seting will loose all its function.

Thoughts?

And the supreme ruling of the boss?

 

[JRaup]

In light of an attempt I noticed of writting an event for declaring a war for a colony in a certain regional thread, I would like to ask what should be our guidance on wars through events?

In my opinion only more important wars that changed the map in civilised world significantly or meant a significant shift in balance of power should be declared by events (and done so with a healthy amount of triggers).

But defenitley not colonial wars.

It is my opinion that with this aproach of writing an event for every obscure war that happened we will worsen not improve the game.

Not to mention this way aggressivness seting will loose all its function.

Thoughts?

And the supreme ruling of the boss?

I think it should be taken on a case by case basis. Some are worth scripting in an event, as other events lead up to, or are a result of said war. IMO, it is more important to have historical treaties, ending said wars, such as teh Crimean War, or the various conflicts in China, for examples. I've noticed for example in China, that teh European land grab goes far beyond anything that falls with in historical potential really. And, some of the existing Treaty events don't do what they should.

this is another of those, "no single solution" issues IMO. It will take a combination of event changes/scripting, AI tweaks, and some economic alterations (waiting on 1.04 I do believe), to get to work "right."

 

[aprof]

In light of an attempt I noticed of writting an event for declaring a war for a colony in a certain regional thread, I would like to ask what should be our guidance on wars through events?

In my opinion only more important wars that changed the map in civilised world significantly or meant a significant shift in balance of power should be declared by events (and done so with a healthy amount of triggers).

But defenitley not colonial wars.

It is my opinion that with this aproach of writing an event for every obscure war that happened we will worsen not improve the game.

Not to mention this way aggressivness seting will loose all its function.

Thoughts?

And the supreme ruling of the boss?

I scripted the Spanish-American War and am now working on events for Russian conquest of Bukkhara, Kokand and Khiva.

For the Span-Am War, I have two historically-based options for Spain to avoid war. These are granting dominion status or independance to Cuba - which given the Cuban desire at the time seemed the only reasonable way for Spain to avoid revolution in Cuba. These options are before the USA/CSA gets interested in Cuba. I also have two chances for the USA/CSA to choose to avoid war giving a total of four ways to opt out. Of course the Player has more latitude to choose peace, while an AI country has the peace choices as 'b' choices, so it is less likely they will be chosen by an AI country.

With the 'Great Game' events I'm working on now, I'm using my research to offer a beginning choice that can allow the Player/AI to completely sleep the rest of the chain. I will also have choices within the chains so as to avoid wars. And when possible give a reasonable historical choice for the outcome over war.

While I want to create the same sort of situation that led to the historical war, I don't want it to be a foregone conclusion. Besides, alternate endings based on history can sometimes be more intriguing.

 

[unmerged(5323)]

I guess both of you are right then. There can not be one supreme ruling on this.

(aprof, it wasn`t your events that promted me to ask this, infact I had totaly forgotten about them.)

 

[Generalisimo]

I scripted the Spanish-American War and am now working on events for Russian conquest of Bukkhara, Kokand and Khiva.

For the Span-Am War, I have two historically-based options for Spain to avoid war. These are granting dominion status or independance to Cuba - which given the Cuban desire at the time seemed the only reasonable way for Spain to avoid revolution in Cuba. These options are before the USA/CSA gets interested in Cuba. I also have two chances for the USA/CSA to choose to avoid war giving a total of four ways to opt out. Of course the Player has more latitude to choose peace, while an AI country has the peace choices as 'b' choices, so it is less likely they will be chosen by an AI country.

With the 'Great Game' events I'm working on now, I'm using my research to offer a beginning choice that can allow the Player/AI to completely sleep the rest of the chain. I will also have choices within the chains so as to avoid wars. And when possible give a reasonable historical choice for the outcome over war.

While I want to create the same sort of situation that led to the historical war, I don't want it to be a foregone conclusion. Besides, alternate endings based on history can sometimes be more intriguing.

Well, i think that this post describes the problem in the best way.
You must give the player an option to follow history or not... there it is the fun of this game.
Also, like you said, the wars that are triggered by events should have very good trigger conditions, to avoid weird situations (well, that's almost imposible, but it should work in most of the cases ).
Also, some random factor is always great in this game, if not, the player "prepares" for the oncoming wars... something that the AI cannot do... ... In this case, you can always start the DESC: "Historically on...", so the player will know that this war was historically fought on that date, but in the game it could have been fought before or after that date... .. that way, he will not be able to mobilize, prepare defenses, prepare the front, etc for the oncoming war.

 

[Elias Tarfarius]

What application do I need to open the mod? Every time I download it, its a file with no application and so I can't open it. Is this just me or have others had this problem?

 

[OriginalRafiki]

It's an archive-format, .rar. You'll find an application for it e.g. at http://www.rararchiver.com/download.html

Rafiki

 

[JRaup]

Well, i think that this post describes the problem in the best way.
You must give the player an option to follow history or not... there it is the fun of this game.
Also, like you said, the wars that are triggered by events should have very good trigger conditions, to avoid weird situations (well, that's almost imposible, but it should work in most of the cases ).
Also, some random factor is always great in this game, if not, the player "prepares" for the oncoming wars... something that the AI cannot do... ... In this case, you can always start the DESC: "Historically on...", so the player will know that this war was historically fought on that date, but in the game it could have been fought before or after that date... .. that way, he will not be able to mobilize, prepare defenses, prepare the front, etc for the oncoming war.

The options also allow the AI, in a fit of randomness, to avoid certain wars altogether as well. Case in point: In my last game as the US, Spain gave Cuba dominion status, which shut down the entire Span-Am war. After all my years of building up to take em on, they go and do something to keep me from stomping them.

Triggers can be tough to handle though. Getting the right blend, and accounting for genral variations in the dynamic ain't easy. And with some buggy commands, it becomes even more difficult. That said, most that are in (Crimea, Span-Am, Opium, etc), have solid triggers, though a few need some tweaks (as has been done by aprof with Span-Am).

 

[aprof]

The options also allow the AI, in a fit of randomness, to avoid certain wars altogether as well. Case in point: In my last game as the US, Spain gave Cuba dominion status, which shut down the entire Span-Am war. After all my years of building up to take em on, they go and do something to keep me from stomping them.

Good for Spain! A player should occasionally be surprised by the turn of events.

If we are able to implement the flag triggers for the ACW events, I'm hoping that more than a few players will be taken by surprise when New England secedes instead of the CSA. It'd serve them right if they avoided building up the South in prep for the ACW and then lose half of their industry when New England secedes.