Why no one should waste their time helping with this mod.

[WiSK]

That may well be the case, but is, at the very least unproven. I would speculate that it's a small number of events (less than 100) that actually make a difference, and that the effect of the other 95% or whatever it might be is so small as to be meaningless. That's just a guess on my part, but so is your theory.

That's not a guess, it's common sense. Just the fact that certain events depend on certain situations or other events to fire, and not to mention all the wars which destroy minors. Therefore, the further you get into the game timewise, the more likely it is that something along the line has disturbed the conditions needed for an event to fire.

One of my examples was the formation of Prussia. By the time the event rolls around in 1615, the chance that both Brandenburg and Ducal Prussia exist is very small, and this directly has to do with the number of situations which have arisen in the area. Not just b-choices in events, but wars and even some a-choices which might indirectly lead to an annexed PRU or BRA long before the 17th century.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

I see. I was reading your use of the word "event" to mean scripted events in the game, as DS Meyers did. If your point is that there are many other ways in which things can go wrong and these all add up I agree completely.

 

[Mad King James]

I wasn't making an infantile outburst, it was an honest suggestion, as it was exactly what I did when I disagreed with how the EEP managed things.

If it's obvious to him at least that the mod is moving in the wrong direction, why doesn't he just make his own mod?

Or if he doesn't want to start from scratch, make a deterministic mod for the AGCEEP. Gather your own base of builders and just fucking DO it, don't natter on and on and on and on about it.

Anyone can complain about problems, it is the true progressive who actually does something about it.

 

[Yakman]

I think the AGCEEP is a good mod.

I personally don't play to WC. So the AI's limitations aren't so terrible. IF IDLF wants to complain about the EU2 limitations, join the crowd. If he wants to help, stop complaining and start submitting.

 

[unmerged(10128)]

No I haven't. And all I've seen is a bunch of people crying to delete complaints about the mod. That is my whole issue. But please feel free to turn your anger at IDLF to complete strangers who point out your acting like a spoiled child in public.

if all you've seen is a bunch of people crying to delete complaints about the mod, then that fits exactly with what i have told you. if you can find any post other than the two posts above by myself and twoflower that suggests to delete the thread or any other thread started by IDLF, show it to me. if you can't, where is the bunch of people crying to delete complaints about the mod? if that is all you see, then surely "you havent been following other discussions perhaps you dont know, or perhaps you are not interested in following discussions that is answering the question, only interested in complaining about other people's disagreements, or perhaps you are simply distracted by this thread from other threads that are actually trying to answer the question."

Wow great rebuttle did you think long and hard about that before you typed it? I'm floored and found unworthy in the face of your mighty logic.

perhaps you dont see my point. my point is that exactly because it is a free mod it is free for anyone to want to play it or not. so whats your point of saying you want a refund? this mod exists the way it is because it is a free mod.

I win this easy. Am I You? Am I IDLF? Then naturaly I'm a 3rd party. See simple answers to simpleminded questions.

so u think the discussion only consists of me and IDLF. if you think thats a very useful viewpoint to take, fine, u are entitled to be simpleminded.

I disagree with you crying like "please delete this post that makes us look bad". So he doesn't like the mod. Big deal, get on with your life. If he's gone then soon this thread will slip away into the darkness of paradox's forums.

But no you have to make a Federal case out of it. And besides what view did you ask a Mod? You wanted them to remove the post.

Do you enjoy shoving words in peoples mouths? What I was saying was instead of posting

You should PM the mod. I mean why talk about it either PM the mod or zip it.

In fact this thread already has the following spam posts,

The above post by Twoflower,

Mad King James excellent argumant that I'd expect from a 2 yaer old, minus the cussing ofc

e_maiwald seconding of Twoflowers spam, Which sad to say if thats' the
1st smart thing he's heard all day he should get out more.

And ofc your 1st one. Kinda sad 4 spams (unless you also want to include mine replies) in a topic where your complaining anout someone else spamming.

first of all, spam, by definition, is not something that can be stopped. if it is something that can be stopped just by ignoring it, it is not spam. if you understand this concept accurately you will find there is logic behind why people are having difficulty stopping it and why people want to ask a mod to stop it.

second of all by asking a mod to stop it doesnt mean the mod will stop it. there is no guarantee that the mod will stop it and thus i see no problem of asking a mod to stop a thread being a big deal.

So yeah I think you've deviated from the concept of being nice to people. So I'm done and you can have whatever whinny complaining party you want. I noticed this thread because of your inital post and wondered why agceep was not able to be a good mod. I don't agree with his views and I think AGCEEP is a good mod.

if we were not nice to people we will not be discussing about IDLF's suggestions for so long with so much input, which from the above posts you dont seem to realise.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

The problem is in the AGCEEP the gap of economic strength that makes AIs reluctant to DOW you even if you have no alliance or only a small one hits sooner in the AGCEEP than the vanilla. Once you hit that point the game is all down hill. As long as your BB is under a certain point the AIs are programmed to leave you alone. So you just bump off a pagan here and there and focus on colonizing and making province improvements. Then once you get to a certain economic strength you feel like you can just take on the whole world and go on a killing spree for the rest of the game and the AIs just can't stop you at all.ful at appealing to a large chu

This happens way too soon in the AGCEEP and it's because of the events being added. Other factors come into play too but this one alone is decisive enough by itself. And this makes for a boring game. Sure the AGCEEP is more historically acurate, at least for the first 100 years or so. Ya it's a "historical mod" and so the premise is to make it more historical but it is a historical GAME not a gamish history. Gameplay is what really matters in the long run.

If the AGCEEP is less challenging than the vanilla most people will try it if they see it and are interested in trying an EU2 game that's a bit different.

Setting aside all the unproven assertions (all of which I freely admit may be true, but I would certainly not accept as fact without a whole lot more evidence), I think that we can take a lot away from this post. I'd suggest that a couple of things be added to whatever mission statement ends up getting endorsed, to ensure that people in the future do not feel misled the way that IDLF does. I would suggest that these be:
-The AGCEEP is not intended to be the most challenging mod possible. While we strive to make gameplay challenging historical considerations take precedence.
-The AGCEEP is consensus driven. The purpose of the discussion threads is to establish a consensus about changes under consideration. Issues should not be brought to the HC until it is clear that a consensus cannot be reached.

 

[unmerged(16323)]

One of my examples was the formation of Prussia. By the time the event rolls around in 1615, the chance that both Brandenburg and Ducal Prussia exist is very small, and this directly has to do with the number of situations which have arisen in the area. Not just b-choices in events, but wars and even some a-choices which might indirectly lead to an annexed PRU or BRA long before the 17th century.

I don't think that the example of Brandenburg-Prussia is a good here. It's not the problem that Brandenburg-Prussia usually (or rather I say never) becomes a great power. The real problem is that there is no one takes their historical place and becomes the hegemon of northern Germany. Let's take Saxony for example. They were strong, and quite likely would dominate Norht Germany if Prussia didn't. The same I feel about Portugal. The fact that they don't go after their colonial posessions in Brazil, Africa and Indonesia is not the real problem. It's the fact that no european nation goes out to replace them.

I know the limitations of the game engine. And I know that the whole idea about Eu2 is not to simulate history. And I don't mind if Portugal (or Portugal or England) is not strong enough to colonize. I would even be against forcing them to colonize when they are a one province vassal of Castille. But if Portugal doesn't go overseas, who will?

Actually, not being involved too much in AGCEPP (except for the Cossack Uprising events ) I see a problem while reading the discussions which the HC members and other contributors have.

On one hand we have historical plausibility. We have random explorers from naval tech 11 (which AI gets really late) and sliders moved towards land for nations which weren't too much involved in colonization in history, but still have a coast. We have no events giving minors or regional powers a chance to go out colonizing.

On the other hand the "No For AI Cheat Events" lobby is against strenghtening Portugal. I do understand the arguments, but it just pains me that Portugal or Englang is so weak in conquering the "New World".

Well the whole point that I'm trying to make is that (and propably you don't get, because of my bad english) while making nations to do what they really did through AI cheat events is not good, not allowing other countries to jump in by restraining them in the name of historical plausibility is just as wrong.

Why can't Denmark, which beat up Sweden, colonize in early XVI (and they can't, lacking explorers and AI file entries)? Why can't a 3 province Hannover want to go overseas?

Just my 2 polskie grosze (hopefully euro-cents in near future )

 

[Twoflower]

Certainly nobody is opposed to strengthening Portugal. What I and others who have objected to IDLF's proposals am against is strengthening Portugal by subtractive AI cheats, i.e. AI cheats that "correct" things that have already happened in the game. I am all for strengthening Portugal and other countries by standard means, and I'm willing to accept helping them by "additive" cheats (i.e. cheats that allow the AI to do things that it otherwise wouldn't be able to do) where it's needed.

 

[unmerged(10128)]

Setting aside all the unproven assertions (all of which I freely admit may be true, but I would certainly not accept as fact without a whole lot more evidence), I think that we can take a lot away from this post. I'd suggest that a couple of things be added to whatever mission statement ends up getting endorsed, to ensure that people in the future do not feel misled the way that IDLF does. I would suggest that these be:
-The AGCEEP is not intended to be the most challenging mod possible. While we strive to make gameplay challenging historical considerations take precedence.
-The AGCEEP is consensus driven. The purpose of the discussion threads is to establish a consensus about changes under consideration. Issues should not be brought to the HC until it is clear that a consensus cannot be reached.

i agree with your two mission statements and that they should be adopted. such discussions were going on in the historical focus thread before but unfortunately due to the distractions by threads such as this one the discussion never ripened into some noble mission statements useful to the community.

 

[GeneralSnoopy]

i agree with your two mission statements and that they should be adopted. such discussions were going on in the historical focus thread before but unfortunately due to the distractions by threads such as this one the discussion never ripened into some noble mission statements useful to the community.

Actually, I thought the "Historical Focus" consensus was to have two high council members develop a set of mission statements and goals for the AGCEEP. The mission statement/goals should also address AI-cheats. There were some interesting discussions in the Portuguese AI thread regarding AI-cheats (positive (ie additive) and negative (ie subtractive) AI-cheats).

 

[unmerged(10128)]

Actually, I thought the "Historical Focus" consensus was to have two high council members develop a set of mission statements and goals for the AGCEEP. The mission statement/goals should also address AI-cheats. There were some interesting discussions in the Portuguese AI thread regarding AI-cheats (positive (ie additive) and negative (ie subtractive) AI-cheats).

really? two high council members? i didnt see that in the thread. perhaps i missed it, but the mission statement shouldnt be left up to two HC members anyway. IMO we were on our way to a noble mission statement in that thread but for distractions like this, plus we should take ideas in the Portugal AI thread and IB's post here to converge into a mission statement.

i m starting a new thread on mission statement, please comment there.

 

[TheLoneTaco]

arturro, axin, and yakman said it. idlf said the baby was ugly, and that was not productive. however, one early problem addressed with the post was its overwhelming negative vibe against the AGCEEP. ironically, what followed was twice as negative and would probably turn away a newbie more successfully than the original post.

i would suggest this thread get closed. right now it seems the only replies are flames against other opinions. if idlf and others want to make an ai-cheat version let them. the makers of this mod don't want that. pretty much end of story.

-Matt

 

[Yakman]

Yes. This is now a flame thread. While IDLF makes some points, he was basically saying that this mod is pointless, which isn't the case, and calling for EU3, which we are all on board for.

Close the thread.

 

[GeneralSnoopy]

really? two high council members? i didnt see that in the thread. perhaps i missed it, but the mission statement shouldnt be left up to two HC members anyway. IMO we were on our way to a noble mission statement in that thread but for distractions like this, plus we should take ideas in the Portugal AI thread and IB's post here to converge into a mission statement.

i m starting a new thread on mission statement, please comment there.

Perhaps, I define consensus too loosely. Norrefeldt in posts 385 and 387 suggests this approach. Essentially, it would be created by two HC members then a thread would be created to receive comments.

 

[Summoner]

Would a series of events that gave Portugul enough additional troops and gold to defend itself from castile/spain be acceptable instead? They did fight over the Juanna affair and didn't loose any major chunks of thier territory, so a case could be made that they should have an army large enough to avoid being crushed.

This is untested, but a possibillity. I'm not sure how many extra troops the Portuguese AI would need, or how much gold the extra support would cost so it would almost certainly need some tweaking to work.

event = {
	id = 
	trigger = {	
               war = { country = POR country = CAS } 
               ai = yes 
        }
	random = no
	country = POR
	name = "AI help to fight Castile"
	desc = "AI help to fight Castile"
	style = 3

	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1422 }
        deathdate = { day = 1 month = december year = 1442}

	action_a ={
		name = "We need Them"
		command = { type = inf which = 441 value = 15000 }
		command = { type = cav which = 441 value = 8000 }		
		command = { type = treasury value = 100 }			
	}
}

 

[almoravid]

I personally like AGCEEP. It is quite challenging. It is a lot harder to survive and grow as Serbia or Byzantium then in vanilla (whose GC I didn't play since I downloaded EEP), where more spectacular things like conquering all of brittish isles and NA with Denmark by 1600 could be done. AGCEEP IMO is not about winning anyway. Everybody (even the worst of the worst players) can beat France in HYW as England. But this everybody has to ask himself wether it will be the same historical fun to play on as if he lost? I prefer keeping them alive and giving them all my posessions just to see some Hugenots later on! So you have to decide what mod fits you best. If you like Daywalker's, play it. But spare the poor AGCEEP of telling it that it's inferior.

As what goes for IDLF, I think his posts make people unhappy, while AGCEEP was started to do the opposite.

 

[unmerged(16323)]

Just some thoughts about AI helper events.

Lately I've played a game as Poland and got tired of AI latin-tehc countries falling far behind and decided to do something about it.

As I played I edited in some manufactories. 1 refinery and naval for portugal (somewhere around 1490), the same for england (about 1515), 1 naval for denmark (1515), 1 weapons and 1 goods for russia (mid 1550s) 1 goods for spain (mid 1500s) and 1 goods for england somwhere in 1630.
I have no number or anything, but in my opinion the game was more challenging. Especially Russia (I also gave them a corridor to Siberia) - the were only falling 5 land levels behind the west, not 10-15 as I've seen in most of my previous games.

Mayby some sort of AI aid events which would give free manufactoreis in historically more or less justified places? I know this could unbalance things, but could be quite helpfull in reducing the Ai to paler tech gap.

 

[almoravid]

Russia is gonna become some challenge once Doktarr's changes are implemented at least.

 

[Khephren]

He's right about one thing.....our ai's stink. I've been playing dozens of hands off games watching and tweaking. Our current ai's are garbage and actually very destructive.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

He's right about one thing.....our ai's stink. I've been playing dozens of hands off games watching and tweaking. Our current ai's are garbage and actually very destructive.

That and many are still using vanilla AIs, ie anything that doesn't have a country specific one uses vanilla AI.