aprof said:
Well, I annexed Texas. They had craftsmen. I will have to look at the trading screen- processed goods hardly ever seem to be available for sale.
-
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.
Well, I annexed Texas. They had craftsmen. I will have to look at the trading screen- processed goods hardly ever seem to be available for sale.
OK... this is bugging me now.
First came the event saying that Mexico was in turmoil after losing a war with America which hadn't happened yet (with militancy increases which may well have been the reason I lost it when it did happen)...
And then there's the event which hands over California and Utah to the USA, lock, stock and barrel. Shouldn't they have to physically occupy these places? Worst is California- the Americans actually acquire this as part of their country by event, so even if they lose the war (and I had them on the run for a while....) they're bound to keep it.
First came the event saying that Mexico was in turmoil after losing a war with America which hadn't happened yet (with militancy increases which may well have been the reason I lost it when it did happen)...
And then there's the event which hands over California and Utah to the USA, lock, stock and barrel. Shouldn't they have to physically occupy these places? Worst is California- the Americans actually acquire this as part of their country by event, so even if they lose the war (and I had them on the run for a while....) they're bound to keep it.
Golden_Deliciou said:
Mexico has an event which only fires if it has lost a war with USA. (Keep in mind that certain types of white peaces are considered losses by the game engine.) There may or may not be something wrong with this event, and I'll take a look at it. Also (iirc), at least one Mexican event fires during a Mexican-American war, if the Mexicans aren't easily beating the Americans. This happened historically -- the Mexicans were basically happy to go to war with USA, because they thought it would be an easy win for them, and that they would easily retake Texas. When that didn't happen, there were uprisings. (More information from your game would be helpful -- was there any war in progress between USA and Mexico, or did the event fire without there ever having been a war? And, if you can recall, what was the title of the event that fired?)
The second events you mention have been adjusted to only transfer control, not ownership, of California and Utah to USA, and this will be in 0.3. The reason there's no requirement that USA occupy those states before the event fires is that, historically, the anglo settlers in both places announced allegiance to USA at the beginning of the Mexican-American War, and then provided troops to USA forces. In California there was fighting with Mexican residents; in Utah there were only anglos, and they actually provided an infantry unit to USA.
Theodotus1 said:
Well... I did cede provinces in the peace. But they were provinces which had been American trading posts...
More to the point, the event triggered eight years after the end of that war, after I'd enjoyed a long period of stability and growth. I could understand if the event triggered immediately after the war.There was a war that concluded in 1839. The event fired in 1847. I don't remember the name but the blurb was something like "Mexico descended into chaos". +4 or 5 of militancy and consciousness. Ouch. The next war began in March 1849.
I wonder- could you make the control change dependent upon the dominant culture in each province? I know a lot of them were Cree etc. Some I think were even Mexican.
Anyway, this is the biggest problem solved. With the above, the war would have gone a lot better for Mexico.
Golden_Deliciou said:Well... I did cede provinces in the peace. But they were provinces which had been American trading posts...
There was a war that concluded in 1839. The event fired in 1847. I don't remember the name but the blurb was something like "Mexico descended into chaos". +4 or 5 of militancy and consciousness. Ouch. The next war began in March 1849.
I wonder- could you make the control change dependent upon the dominant culture in each province? I know a lot of them were Cree etc. Some I think were even Mexican.
Anyway, this is the biggest problem solved. With the above, the war would have gone a lot better for Mexico.
This is useful information. (As I understand the game mechanics, you were considered the loser by ceding any territory -- but I could be confused about that.) The main issue appears to be that you apparently fought an early Mex-Am War, and the event was written in the context of what historically happened, with a Mex-Am War that took place from 1846-48. I'll look into adjusting the date range.
As for making the control change dependent on dominant culture, I'll take a look at that also. (I'm not certain that can even be worked into the triggers, though.) However, historically the anglos weren't necessarily the most numerous population in any of the places (especially as compared to numbers of Native Americans). Historically the case was that the anglos just siezed power and then handed the ground over to USA. (And the ground then happened to be too far away from Mexico proper for the Mexicans to successfully retake it.) Be that as it may, these events are still subject to revision, as none of us at VIP want players of Mexico to feel that they're getting a total raw deal from them.
Your feedback is most helpful, as it's bringing to light problems that didn't show up in my previous tests. (And, hopefully, I can make some time for VIP this afternoon, so as to get some fixes into 0.3, rather than making people wait for 0.3b.)
Theodotus1 said:
Yeah- I guess I should accept I lost the war in game terms at least- it's the time gap that worries me.
The war triggered off an event where the other option was just to give the USA essentially everything which Mexico historically ceded.
Yeah- so you could test the provinces to see if they're Mexican dominated. If they're anything else hand them to the USA.
Cheers.
Golden_Deliciou said:
I should be able to fix the time gap just by adjusting the date range for the event.
I'll also try to make the Mexican-dominated province adjustment you suggest. (I don't know if the game currently has sufficient trigger commands to implement that, however. We shall see.) Some of this will make it into 0.3 -- the rest should be in 0.3b.
I'm also going to adjust Mexican POPs so that there are some craftsmen present at GC start. (There may also be some alterations to the types of factories present at start, thanks to suggestions by El Leon which are based on his research on Mexican economic history, but I'm still awaiting a consensus from VIP as to those at this point.)
Was there anything else about Mexico that seemed bugged or otherwise wrong? (I ran quite a few HO tests once upon a time, but I know for sure that they didn't find everything that might be out of kilter.)
Last edited:
Golden_Deliciou said:
Just a follow-up on the above issues:
I've submitted a modded POP file for Mexico in which half the clerks have been changed to craftsmen.
I found two French events (one of which involved recognition of Texas) which were bugged, in that they are triggered by other events, while at the same time having date ranges. This meant that they would fire even if not triggered by the other events, which is wrong. This has been fixed, and should work correctly in 0.3.
The event regarding the Texas/Mexico border dispute and USA appears to be WAD. This is part of a vanilla Vicky event chain, and basically it fires if Mexico owns Texas, giving USA the option to offer to purchase Texas from Mexico. If Mexico refuses that offer, a flag is set which can lead to border tensions and can give USA the option to declare war on Mexico. Thus, the events in question should only fire if Mexico owns Texas.
As for the border tension events between the Republic of Texas and Mexico, those should only fire if Texas exists, and those also appear to be WAD at present. (If those are firing when Texas does not exist, please post about it so I can take a second look.)
The change to the battle of San Jacinto event, to make it less deterministic, is going to wait for 0.3b or 0.4, because I want to wait until we have 0.3 working well before I throw that into the mix.
Theodotus1 said:
Nothing else I've run into- but there was a post on the main forum about an event which occured around 1860 based on economic collapse which gives the choice of defaulting on all loans and triggering the European intervention events or paying out £100,000. If possible, this event should be dependant on the government being in debt in the first place- fairly odd to have the Europeans invading when I default on a non-existant loan.
Thanks for all your help.
Golden_Deliciou said:
That's a vanilla event. And yes, it can seem a far too scripted event to have happen when you've been running a fiscally sound Mexican government.
One thing that the VIP team is planning to do for VIP v04 is to review all the events. A lot of that was done for v03 already, but we hope to do more balancing of effects that come through events, and try to guarantee that nothing like this event will strike out of the blue.
Golden_Deliciou said:
In VIP (even as it currently exists) this event can be avoided, primarily by preventing Juarez's liberals from winning the Reform War.
Historically, the whole Mexican loan issue was trumped up by the defeated conservatives, who effectively staged a counter-revolution by inviting the French to invade and overthrow the victorious liberals. The debt issue was used as a front by the French to cover their real objective, which was to gain a diplomatic satellite by turning Mexico into the "Empire" with Maximillian of Austria being placed on the throne, backed by French troops.
In VIP, therefore, if the conservatives/clericals win the Reform War, the debt crisis/Intervention events should be prevented from firing.
As a further update: the clerk/craftsman situation in Mexico at GC start will probably be addressed in 0.3, but exact details are still in flux.
Golden_Deliciou said:
Good to know this is WAD. (Seemed to work in testing, but I never feel to certain that things are WAD just from hands-off tests.) Many thanks for the input.
After doing some research for the 1919-1933 project on Lindbergh's Trans-Atlantic flight, I've been doing more research into aviation firsts. For VIP v04, I'm wanting to have a selection of "random" events for each nation that utilizes some pioneering aviation firsts.
So far I've determined these categories for events.
1) First Flight (powered heavier-than-air) (This one will have to have fired to open all others, but after it fires, pretty much any can be fired limited only by any date/ deathdate I feel is necessary.)
2) First Woman Pilot
3) First Flying Boat
4) First Cross-Channel Flight (the vanilla "Across the Channel" event will be rewritten to be part of this group.
5) First Trans-Mediterranean Flight
6) First Trans-Atlantic Flight
7) First Regular Passenger Service Established
8) First Mail Service Established
9) First Multi-Engined Aircraft
10) First international Aviation Meet
I will try to have something for all the major nations - ENG, FRA, GER, ITA, RUS, USA etc, plus any significant first by a minor nation.
The sort of benefits that will come will likely be prestige, research, pop_consciousness/ pop_militancy lowered.
The triggers will be "invention = 501" (Wright's and Langly's Aeroplane) and a "random = xx" to make the firing of the events be different from game to game. One game, the Wrights will be the first to fly, the next maybe it'll be Louis Bleriot. Each group will have one event fire - all others of that group will be slept by the firing event.
This might make gaining the invention of flight into something well worth having.
I'm posting this idea here more because this is my "home" thread and the topic has a famous first associated with North America, but it will relate to all the major nations.
Any ideas? Suggestions for other groups? Recommendations of events that should be included in a group?
So far I've determined these categories for events.
1) First Flight (powered heavier-than-air) (This one will have to have fired to open all others, but after it fires, pretty much any can be fired limited only by any date/ deathdate I feel is necessary.)
2) First Woman Pilot
3) First Flying Boat
4) First Cross-Channel Flight (the vanilla "Across the Channel" event will be rewritten to be part of this group.
5) First Trans-Mediterranean Flight
6) First Trans-Atlantic Flight
7) First Regular Passenger Service Established
8) First Mail Service Established
9) First Multi-Engined Aircraft
10) First international Aviation Meet
I will try to have something for all the major nations - ENG, FRA, GER, ITA, RUS, USA etc, plus any significant first by a minor nation.
The sort of benefits that will come will likely be prestige, research, pop_consciousness/ pop_militancy lowered.
The triggers will be "invention = 501" (Wright's and Langly's Aeroplane) and a "random = xx" to make the firing of the events be different from game to game. One game, the Wrights will be the first to fly, the next maybe it'll be Louis Bleriot. Each group will have one event fire - all others of that group will be slept by the firing event.
This might make gaining the invention of flight into something well worth having.
I'm posting this idea here more because this is my "home" thread and the topic has a famous first associated with North America, but it will relate to all the major nations.
Any ideas? Suggestions for other groups? Recommendations of events that should be included in a group?
aprof said:
so, why not modify the invention 'event' to provide the bonuses your proposing?
Overhaul the ACW
I've been brainstorming changes to the american civil war for the last week or so, and i figured that i'd go public in order to refine what im thinking and perhaps get things changed eventually.
While the causes of the ACW are always debated, generally speaking i think the game ought to take the following into account:
1) republican in power
2) 'high' Dixie consiousness/militancy (Plurality?). (> 6? need playtesting)
3) inequal slave/free statehood. this should be the main thing that kicks off the civil war.
generally speaking, the south's fear that slavery would be outlawed nationwide was what kicked off the civil war. the republican party was viewed as anti-slavery, and the fear was if anyone was going to outlaw slavery it would be ol' abe lincoln to do it.
of course, with consiousness/militancy in the game, having dixie pops with high enough plurality(?) to show that there even aware of the issue would be important.
statehood. in term of the US, statehood during the period is extremely important. of course, due to the nature of the game design there is nothing to stop a player from granting statehood to any territory in the US that he wishes. however, with some type of system to count the slave vs. free states in place this sould become an issue for any player. im thinking that using a couple of flags to keep track of how many 'northern' and 'southern' states there are, the equality of the congress issues can be simulated. when the player allows more free states into the union than slave states, dixie consiousness and militancy sould skyrocket.
if we use consiousness and militancy, how about using revolts to kick off the ACW? ie.: look for dixie pops to revolt, and when they actually capture a provence, that would cause the state that there in to succeed from the union.
once more than one state succeeds, then the whole south should go... or at least thoes states with a dixie majority vs. yankee pops. this system might then be able to simulate the border state wars as well. something like, if there's a close enough population difference between dixie and yankee populations in a state, then the pops would have instantly high consiousness and militancy.
i havent actually scripted anything yet, but i've been thinking of this for some time, and am going to get started soon. any input yall could provide would be apreciated.
I've been brainstorming changes to the american civil war for the last week or so, and i figured that i'd go public in order to refine what im thinking and perhaps get things changed eventually.
While the causes of the ACW are always debated, generally speaking i think the game ought to take the following into account:
1) republican in power
2) 'high' Dixie consiousness/militancy (Plurality?). (> 6? need playtesting)
3) inequal slave/free statehood. this should be the main thing that kicks off the civil war.
generally speaking, the south's fear that slavery would be outlawed nationwide was what kicked off the civil war. the republican party was viewed as anti-slavery, and the fear was if anyone was going to outlaw slavery it would be ol' abe lincoln to do it.
of course, with consiousness/militancy in the game, having dixie pops with high enough plurality(?) to show that there even aware of the issue would be important.
statehood. in term of the US, statehood during the period is extremely important. of course, due to the nature of the game design there is nothing to stop a player from granting statehood to any territory in the US that he wishes. however, with some type of system to count the slave vs. free states in place this sould become an issue for any player. im thinking that using a couple of flags to keep track of how many 'northern' and 'southern' states there are, the equality of the congress issues can be simulated. when the player allows more free states into the union than slave states, dixie consiousness and militancy sould skyrocket.
if we use consiousness and militancy, how about using revolts to kick off the ACW? ie.: look for dixie pops to revolt, and when they actually capture a provence, that would cause the state that there in to succeed from the union.
once more than one state succeeds, then the whole south should go... or at least thoes states with a dixie majority vs. yankee pops. this system might then be able to simulate the border state wars as well. something like, if there's a close enough population difference between dixie and yankee populations in a state, then the pops would have instantly high consiousness and militancy.
i havent actually scripted anything yet, but i've been thinking of this for some time, and am going to get started soon. any input yall could provide would be apreciated.
ohms_law said:
Believe it or not, nearly everything you've proposed here will be in the next release in some form.
Between Aragos and Aprof, a new ACW scheme has been implemented, and works off of the most significant issues attributed to the rise of Southern separtism. The whole slave/free soil issue as states join the union is in, as are events linked to ruling party (mainly for a Republican victory between 1854-1880). The various "flash point" evenst are in (Dred Scott, John Brown's Raid, etc), and it all contributed to growing tensions between the North and the South. The New Engalnd Secession is also linked to all this (if you go too far in terms of pro-slavery).
WOW, your kidding! thats great! i can't wait to give it a try...
incidentally, this tread is waaaay to long. some kind moderator should talk to one of you that is constantly here to break this up into sub-subjects. there is just no way to come here cold and read through all 140+ pages of this thread...
incidentally, this tread is waaaay to long. some kind moderator should talk to one of you that is constantly here to break this up into sub-subjects. there is just no way to come here cold and read through all 140+ pages of this thread...
ohms_law said:
Because then every country that gets that invention gets those bonuses. The idea is to capture some of the flavor of the experimentation period of flight - who was the first to fly (prestige), who accomplished various records such as long-distance travel, first to fly cross-channel, etc, who was the first to develop commercial uses for airplanes (mail and passenger service). Each aviation event would grant something different.
ohms_law said:
We'll be glad to hear your reactions and suggestions to make it better for v04 too.
You're not the first to comment on that, either.
We've had at least a dozen people who have greatly contributed to VIP working through this thread since last November. That's the main reason it's so long. But except when we have a real active period, you really don't need to read more than the last four or five pages to see what is presently happening with the North American countries.