Changing the way scripted peace/events work.

[veji1]

I have been thinking about the way events like Pressburg or Tilsit are working (or not) and I think there should be a fundamental change : these events should not lead to an "exchange of vows" between sides but rather be a one sided affair : The diplomatic engine, which will hopefully become a bit more flexible yet simple (à la EU II....) is there for that.

Events like Pressburg, Tilsit or other potential peace events I have failed to encounter at this stage are there because they "force" a route, and as such really should be treated like an RGD one player chooses or not to enforce. So they should only be there as a possibility for te French and if the french player or AI choses to use it, boom : it should fire instantly.

No need for Austria or PRussia or Russia to agree : the conditions of the event (ie french occupying such and such province, high french NM, low austrian/x NM, etc) are there to emulate the defeat of a side having to accept peace as it is.

The inmense advantage would be to drastically simplify the situation with the event of the event chain and the problems it raises (ie "why doesn't Austria just accept the bloody event"). The Event would fire instantly (ie the following turn), the land + Money/horse/WS swap take place instantly, the access and supply conditions be set for both parties (allowing troops to retreat to their national territory), the creation of puppet states as well, etc.

The Pressburg / Tilsit chain of events have created lots of unnecessary grief : avoid the chain of events, pack all in one event to be chosen by the victor and boom, you can move to other things to improve rather than losing time delving into complicated chains which require the AI to agree to do something.

[MarshalJean]

I agree, veji. In fact, I said this in the "Pressburg peace not working," thread:


Maybe I'm not understanding something fundamental to how this process is supposed to work, but can't we just fix the major historical peace pacts (Pressburg, Tilsit, Schonbrunn, etc.) by NOT making it a matter of offering the defeated AI a deal it must accept (something that continues to prove itself problematic), but rather an event that is automatically fired when the player meets the conditions, selects the event from the F4 screen, and pays the EP cost? Why can't it just fire as a massive event in one turn, complete with war indemnity, WSU, and horse gains for the victor (when applicable), foreign access given to the victor for a limited time to give them the ability to move out of the conquered territory, VP gain for the victor, and historical territories automatically given to the proper state that gained them? Can't this just be written into one massive event that fires once the player meets the conditions and selects it from the F4 screen? What am I missing? Because I feel like I must be missing something, apparently.

Just my two cents.

MJ

[veji1]

I agree, veji. In fact, I said this in the "Pressburg peace not working," thread:


Maybe I'm not understanding something fundamental to how this process is supposed to work, but can't we just fix the major historical peace pacts (Pressburg, Tilsit, Schonbrunn, etc.) by NOT making it a matter of offering the defeated AI a deal it must accept (something that continues to prove itself problematic), but rather an event that is automatically fired when the player meets the conditions, selects the event from the F4 screen, and pays the EP cost? Why can't it just fire as a massive event in one turn, complete with war indemnity, WSU, and horse gains for the victor (when applicable), foreign access given to the victor for a limited time to give them the ability to move out of the conquered territory, VP gain for the victor, and historical territories automatically given to the proper state that gained them? Can't this just be written into one massive event that fires once the player meets the conditions and selects it from the F4 screen? What am I missing? Because I feel like I must be missing something, apparently.

Just my two cents.

MJ

Sorry man, it looks like I just paraphrased your suggestion !

[MarshalJean]

Oh, no big deal. And you certainly don't need to apologize!

I just wanted you to know that others are behind you on this! Thanks for your work on these forums.

MJ

[lycortas2]

Yeah, the Austrian AI does not seem interested in accepting the historical peace, something needs to change.

[lodilefty]

Yeah, the Austrian AI does not seem interested in accepting the historical peace, something needs to change.

I spent most of yesterday on these events, and they are WAD on my setup now...

If this still occurs with the Jan 19 patch, STOP.
Then please post your saved game with at least 2 turn backup AND the entire contents of your \Scripts folder and \Logs folder.

[veji1]

I spent most of yesterday on these events, and they are WAD on my setup now...

If this still occurs with the Jan 19 patch, STOP.
Then please post your saved game with at least 2 turn backup AND the entire contents of your \Scripts folder and \Logs folder.

Thanks for all your work, but see this is where a simpler mechanism would save you time to work on other things (better operational AI, etc) rather than having to spend many hours fixing a very compllicated chain of events and the AI scripts linked to it.

[lodilefty]

Thanks for all your work, but see this is where a simpler mechanism would save you time to work on other things (better operational AI, etc) rather than having to spend many hours fixing a very compllicated chain of events and the AI scripts linked to it.

Designers decision, perhaps if we still can't get it to work.

IMHO, we try to create a game that allows deviation from history as much as possible, while still allowing player to "loosely" follow history.
These kind of choices "increase replay variety"

[fred zeppelin]

I considered raising this issue myself, but figured they're too far down the design road to turn back now. But I agree that there's something off-putting about playing a dynamic game to try to achieve a static result. The various treaties that happened historically weren't the only possible outcomes, of course, and Napoleon could have won the same sorts of victories he did, but in different combination, and have achieved similar diplomatic results, but with different details. Better, I think, would have been to let the player pursue his own goals and achieve results that mirror his own efforts, but in an historically plausible way.

As it is now, it's like Napoleon rolled a 6 and a 5 and a 2, so you have to roll exactly the same thing.

[Lucky]

On a different note. Is it possible to just keep expanding french borders by offering peace terms that include taking territories. By doing this I would completely avoid having to deal with a minor country.