[PON] Conflict in Europe - General Thread

[Sir Garnet]

FYI

Event scripts are starting new and unneeded RR for Brazil. Not a good idea given the economic or coal situation, however the attempt to cancel construction causes the game to crash.


================

ISMAJOR Setting

Kensai, if an IsMajor=no country were to conquer and permanently occupy (since annexation is not allowed) an IsMajor=yes country, would that be enough to give it IsMajor=yes status in your view? If not, what about conquering and permanently occupying a Great Power? If not that, then what would be required?

[lukasberger]

Let's hope you aren't currently forming plans to conquer and permanently occupy Austria!

[Kensai]

What about setting the IsMajor to YES and be done with it? Brazil and Sweden should have it already by now.

I have a different problem, regarding "destroyed structures", obviously with the declaration of war from the USA I rushed to disband my four economic structures in American soil to avoid having Japanese assets fall to the enemy because of bad relations. Nonetheless, the Imperial Gold structure in Sacramento is not possible to disband. I suspect it is a simple interface problem because of the many mines, since I could not access it either some time ago (screen would not scroll). The other gold mine in Sacramento was disbanded without problems. Not super high priority as it seems Sacramento is in permanent strike for years now, but I would like to pass a script to forcibly disband this.

[Citizen X]

Early May 1878
Citizen, it is safer to run and rerun this script when needed. We can always set it as a multi-turn event with conditions, but it is better this way. Adding it now.

Code: Select all

SelectFaction = $CMN
SelectRegion = $Constantinople
StartEvent = Five Diplomats arrive at Istanbul (starting pool) (1868)|1|1|NULL|NULL|$Constantinople|NULL
Actions
SelectFaction = TUR
ChangeResStock = $merDiplomat;5
EndEvent

Of course. Thanks

[Kensai]

Late May 1878

[Ojodeaguila]

Why not? Selling or lending territories to semi-neutral third parties - during or just before wars - to prevent enemy occupation is perfectly plausible from a historic point of view. And it makes more much sense than the way 'peacekeepers' are now still allowed to be used.

I think that the attacker must receive a CB in the peacekeeper in this situations.

[Sir Garnet]

I think that the attacker must receive a CB in the peacekeeper in this situations.

At least. In real life the attacker can choose not to recognize the paper change of "ownership" and simply take over the territory, so should have passage rights there. The lessee would need to have enough troops and administration on the ground to face down the attacker and make it stick. Which means if used it should take time to set up effective occupation.

[Kensai]

If Japan needs to oust the so called peacekeepers, it can always forge a CB and declare war on France. That was not the main problem, I protested against doing it in a frontline province the moment I was about to invade it. Since the game engine cannot cope, these changes should be done when not at war or at least in non-frontline provinces.

Early June 1878

[bjfagan]

I probably missed something a little while ago, but how did Cyprus become British controlled?

[Kensai]

I noticed that too, quite strange. Jim-NC, was it an unreported GBR event?
Late June 1878

[Citizen X]

I noticed that too, quite strange. Jim-NC, was it an unreported GBR event?
Late June 1878

That's a scripted event. The Ottomans sold Cyprus in 1878 to get British support in the Bulgarian crisis. One of the things that havent been looked over, when Ottomans were made choseable. Can't be prevented. I think it has a 100% chance.

[Savoyard]

I bought all of the coal in the Baltic Russia market last turn. I hope you guys didn't need it.

[Kensai]

Citizen X, if it was a red event, you could post the screenshot here. If your turn is not in the Dropbox anymore you can restore it just to get your turn and load it, then delete it again.
Considering that GBR indeed tried to coerce GRE into getting out of the war, I think this sale played fine in this alternate reality.

I bought all of the coal in the Baltic Russia market last turn. I hope you guys didn't need it.

I will ask the same question 21st century Western world asks Iran. Swap uranium for coal.
What's Persia doing with so much coal back then?!

[Savoyard]

I will ask the same question 21st century Western world asks Iran. Swap uranium for coal.
What's Persia doing with so much coal back then?!

Muh textile, steel, and mfg. good factories. Even opium fields need it!

[bjfagan]

That's a scripted event. The Ottomans sold Cyprus in 1878 to get British support in the Bulgarian crisis. One of the things that havent been looked over, when Ottomans were made choseable. Can't be prevented. I think it has a 100% chance.

Hmm... so the game does allow for transfer of national provinces and even implements it at times according to history... very interesting, but now we must take into account our own version of history. Therefore, Germany can claim Suez as part of a peace agreement. There should be no issue now, Kensai.

[Jonathan Pollard]

Swedish ships that the government of Sweden intends to transfer to the Chinese have arrived at Canton.
Although the exact price to be paid for the ships remains to be announced, a script will be needed for the transfer of two ironclad corvette squadrons, each with 4 ironclad corvettes, and two squadrons of steam transports, each with 8 elements of 3x steam transports. The total cost of the ships include 32 prestige points, 16 conscripts, and 8 officers.

[Sir Garnet]

[OOC - I was unable to detect any Swedish naval presence at Canton harbor until I used the ChangeFaction SWE command.]

That is because their Hide Value exceeds your Detection and you are not Allied. Fleets with battleships would be easily detected by your troops or ships with any decent detection value. That is the same reason small Taiping forces can sometimes remain invisible.

[nemethand]

That's a scripted event. The Ottomans sold Cyprus in 1878 to get British support in the Bulgarian crisis. One of the things that havent been looked over, when Ottomans were made choseable. Can't be prevented. I think it has a 100% chance.

Prolly also the reason for RUS-GBR relations having dropped by 60 or sg.

I bought all of the coal in the Baltic Russia market last turn. I hope you guys didn't need it.

welcome. Hope you also paid the extra price.

[Sir Garnet]

I bought all of the coal in the Baltic Russia market last turn. I hope you guys didn't need it.

Perhaps a precipitate premium-price procurement ploy promoting Persia's presence and productivity? (While the Greeks and Turks get all the "love")

[Kensai]

Hmm... so the game does allow for transfer of national provinces and even implements it at times according to history... very interesting, but now we must take into account our own version of history. Therefore, Germany can claim Suez as part of a peace agreement. There should be no issue now, Kensai.

You don't get it, do you?
Since we started this game, we have always accepted the historical events (when they blatantly didn't make sense, we overruled them, but seriously how many times did we do this?) and we have played without extended claims. The Cyprus event is perfectly compatible with the alternate reality, given the threats Great Britain gave against Greece. What does not probably make sense is GBR not getting a VP penalty if not declaring war to those attacking TUR, but if that was not scripted in the event, we should leave it as it is.

Swedish ships that the government of Sweden intends to transfer to the Chinese have arrived at Canton.
Although the exact price to be paid for the ships remains to be announced, a script will be needed for the transfer of two ironclad corvette squadrons, each with 4 ironclad corvettes, and two squadrons of steam transports, each with 8 elements of 3x steam transports. The total cost of the ships include 32 prestige points, 16 conscripts, and 8 officers.

This is acceptable, but it should be the max China will be able to get. Remember, you are already above and beyond your force pool allowance.

[Sir Garnet]

I've spent some hours trying to make the peace bug respawn script work (should be simple compared with the territorial and site transfer for which I rely on Philippe).

The first item is moving to sea of the frigate that was teleported from Java into the upper Amazon. Can anyone spot the problem causing a crash "Script Engine Error(s) while parsing line 6 Apply" in the following? Or is the AGEOD Wiki about this command obsolete for PON so I need to destroy and recreate units to simply move them?

Code: Select all

StartEvent = Dec 1872 Treaty of St P Part 3test12 Respawn Peace Bug Move Frig|1|1|NULL|NULL|$Rio de Janeiro|NULL
Actions
SelectFaction = $BRZ
SelectRegion = $Manaus
SelUnqUnit = $6o Esc. fragatas
MoveUnit = $Belem
Apply
EndEvent

I have tried the name without the $ as shown in Wiki. I have tried $Gulf of the Amazon as the destination instead. I have tried ;RestrictFac at the end of SelUnqUnit. Either have no result or a crash.

Thanks

[Bohémond]

I've spent some hours trying to make the peace bug respawn script work (should be simple compared with the territorial and site transfer for which I rely on Philippe).

The first item is moving to sea of the frigate that was teleported from Java into the upper Amazon. Can anyone spot the problem causing a crash "Script Engine Error(s) while parsing line 6 Apply" in the following? Or is the AGEOD Wiki about this command obsolete for PON so I need to destroy and recreate units to simply move them?

Code: Select all

StartEvent = Dec 1872 Treaty of St P Part 3test12 Respawn Peace Bug Move Frig|1|1|NULL|NULL|$Rio de Janeiro|NULL
Actions
SelectFaction = $BRZ
SelectRegion = $Manaus
SelUnqUnit = $6o Esc. fragatas
MoveUnit = $Belem
Apply
EndEvent

I have tried the name without the $ as shown in Wiki. I have tried $Gulf of the Amazon as the destination instead. I have tried ;RestrictFac at the end of SelUnqUnit. Either have no result or a crash.

Thanks

The line Apply is not needed and must be removed. It should be the one that cause the crash. Apply is needed when a unit or stack is created by Event.

Regards

[Jonathan Pollard]

This is acceptable, but it should be the max China will be able to get.
Remember, you are already above and beyond your force pool allowance.

So if I disband some or all of my existing junk units, I will be able to buy additional warship units?

[Savoyard]

Perhaps a precipitate premium-price procurement ploy promoting Persia's presence and productivity? (While the Greeks and Turks get all the "love")

Precisely.

[Jonathan Pollard]

That is because their Hide Value exceeds your Detection and you are not Allied. Fleets with battleships would be easily detected by your troops or ships with any decent detection value. That is the same reason small Taiping forces can sometimes remain invisible.

I was able to see those ships when they were in the sea zone outside of Canton. Maybe I had more ground units at Canton when they were in the sea zone than I do now when they're in the harbor, but it still does not seem logical that you would not be able to detect foreign ships refueling in your own harbor, especially since I have coastal artillery at that harbor.

[Kensai]

Ehm, yes and no. It seems to me we need to do the "talk" again for some of the newest players. It seems to me that some of you don't really understand what the structure pools, force pools, and limited claims mean (as "historical" options) and feel frustrated by the limitations of your nations.

All these settings we decided since the start of the game (not even I, sagji and the others, I only insisted to add historical attrition as well) are in the game to simulate and abstract some historical strengths and handicaps the nations had back in the day. In other words, they are in to make the nations played feel more like their real counterparts in national policies and priorities. This explains the relatively huge naval disposition of GBR or the complete lack of interest for a viable navy for MEX, PER, or CHI.

The fact that CHI does not have a pool for modern ships simply abstracts the fact that Empress Cixi and her gang back in the day were not interested in investing on a powerful fleet, apart from the well known sold ships they got (and scripted events already account for). This is something you should accept. We have already used events of "ship sales" but when a nation has no slots open, these sales (if allowed at all) should be placed rather limited, 1-2 units at max. In your case you already have gotten the "beefed up" Dutch ships by mistake (above and beyond your force pool) and you are getting some more from the Swedes now. But this has to stop somewhere, don't you think? This is not applying only to your proposal, but all proposals in the past... I am baffled by some of you guys that insist in not playing by the game rules we ourselves devised and respected (so far) and want custom solutions to every minor problem there is, even if it is perfectly normal in this semi-historical game of ours.

Here's an incomplete list of things we've done or proposed so far, which have disrespected the game rules:

• Brazilian naval force pools. They have been set TOO HIGH destroying the balance of the rest of South American nations. Actually, we should put a proposal to reverse them back in respect to what other regional powers have (Argentina, Chile, etc). FORCE POOL ISSUE
• Some players have exaggerated with their coal demanding structures (mainly railroads and factories) and now they want to have free coal because of an apparent coal shortness. STRUCTURE POOL ISSUE
• Germany wants to annex Suez. EXTENDED CLAIMS ISSUE
• Crazy back and forth leases of regions to exploit the game engine's inability to account for military control. MIXED ISSUE (INCLUDING A LACK OF FAIR PLAY)

The reason Japan started this war with China is that it knew (if our abstracted historically set rules and fair play were respected) that China would not be able to challenge its conquests. Now the Chinese player wants to overrule these set options to do something blatantly unhistorical (have an invasion fleet for China) above and beyond any set force pool, to claim back what it lost and would not have normally* the possibility to have. It is as if I as Japan, since I only need to invade regions by the sea, was asking to have an infinite marine units that have no penalties attacking shores. After all, it's only what I need as a Japanese player, a unit that can attack by the sea!

*normally in this case means as abstracted by the "historical" rules of the game (structure and force pools) that simulate the strengths and weaknesses of each nation... China was already balanced to be a behemoth on land wars, due to its huge manpower and feudal-style armies. Destroying this balance with an abnormal sale of ships (1-2 units is always ok, no big deal) means that the game loses a great deal of its appeal, as every nation is almost the same as the other; NO, this is not the right game to do such things, we try to abstract the era's reality, each nation should FEEL and PLAY differently

I have personally (as a "DM") fixed many of China's woes. I was the one who proposed to set Cixi as an Empress and not let the Chinese player be stuck with the 2-2-2 ruler until 1910. I was the one who set the internal objectives for China to accrue some VPs per turn, as we have done for all other nations. But now you ask for much more, now you ask to have the goodies a Western nation would have, blowing the historical balance and priorities of each nation. This is a tad too much, don't you think?

Balanced nations according to historical capabilities should be the number 1 priority. Germany has many strong land Generals. Britain many Admirals and a good fleet. Japan has aggressive offensive Generals who leave much to be desired in defense. China has huge manpower and cheap levies. The minor nations do not have (usually) good rulers, but their relatively big structure pool is compensating for that. There is already balance in the game which allows for sound strategies. If all nations play the same, a lot of strategies that would have worked in reality won't be abstracted correctly in the game.

[Citizen X]

I second Kensai's point that the restrictions of the game (pools, claims, generals, leaders etc) should only be overruled, when it would come to an absolute game breaker for a nation (like having no diplomats :cool . In fact I am astonished of the grade of sophistication that the game has, now that I see it in MP, how much every nation has its own character. I neither would want that to vanish (where I have no clue if the transaction in question really would be a gamebreaker). I think that China did a good job so far in overcoming its limitations. There may be no need for a fleet anyways. Well, a riverfleet maybe .

I already said where I see possible exceptions to the claims-rule (regions that control important waterstraits) but other than that I see it mostly the same way as Kensai. But I am only here for a few weeks anyway.

(And if they gets more ships, we wants more generals)

[Sir Garnet]

[*]Brazilian naval force pools. They have been set TOO HIGH destroying the balance of the rest of South American nations. Actually, we should put a proposal to reverse them back in respect to what other regional powers have (Argentina, Chile, etc). FORCE POOL ISSUE

As if zero frigate pool - less than the ships afloat even in 1850 was not a bug, and the quota for a nation with a large naval focus and naval focus should have a diminutive force pool compared with other secondary powers simply because Latin America was the logical place to give last priority in rationing design budget and efforts.*

The general concern over force pools is well meant but this assertion is still annoying and ludicrous (setting aside China, Japan is among the most egregious in fielding a modern fleet in the 1870s (!) while it was not for another decade that it started its enormous buildup that made it able to project power to the mainland) unless you mean that ALL naval force pools should be greatly reduced and the elements per unit reduced in number and increased in effect to end up with fleets of numbers of ships that feel like historical numbers with historical levels of investment in them.

But I agree the extended claims and cherry picking of national provinces is a problem; there are however some omissions of proper claims but that can be dealt with case by case.


===================
* Limited events, border conflicts and claims omitted, procrustean fortification force pools (bascially the same regardless of size), nonexistince of fortress or garrison infantry or artillery models and thus no auto-garrisons either - as mentioned before, those rather than mobile forces should be the fundamental and core force in these countries. This is all OK for single player where South America is only for foreign investment. It is more awkward in MP.

Anyone interested is invited to help create model definitions and script remedies - there wil be prizes!

[Jonathan Pollard]

Not being able to buy more ships is OK with me since I can tell the countries that were ready to deliver ships to me to deliver them to the USA instead, where they can probably be used more effectively due to the better admirals the USA has. I don't mind playing by the rules, I just want to know exactly what the rules are. For example, I still have two junk units available in my build pool, does that mean I voluntarily should not build them due to my purchase of foreign ships?

[Kensai]

As if zero frigate pool - less than the ships afloat even in 1850 was not a bug, and the quota for a nation with a large naval focus and naval focus should have a diminutive force pool compared with other secondary powers simply because Latin America was the logical place to give last priority in rationing design budget and efforts.*

Obviously for the case of Brazil, a westernizing old European colony that won its autonomy long time ago, a zero frigate pool was a design issue. But we went on the other side of the fence. If you recall the discussion, you brought real life numbers and translated them in "game numbers" without taking into consideration what happens to other South American nations for balancing regions. If you recall correctly I was, again, the only one who protested about this balancing issue.

The general concern over force pools is well meant but this assertion is still annoying and ludicrous (setting aside China, Japan is among the most egregious in fielding a modern fleet in the 1870s (!) while it was not for another decade that it started its enormous buildup that made it able to project power to the mainland) unless you mean that ALL naval force pools should be greatly reduced and the elements per unit reduced in number and increased in effect to end up with fleets of numbers of ships that feel like historical numbers with historical levels of investment in them.

OK, presuming that the devs did some research and balancing at least for the "protagonist nations" of the game, the Japanese force pools should be ok. As a matter of fact, they are already more limited than most European nations and given the 20-years lag in technology (since until 1869 Japan was backwards tech-wise) I seriously doubt your assertion of "modern fleet". The American ships I fought a couple of turns ago were even sporting modern designs Japan has not attained yet, including cruisers. So I don't think your assertion of Japan having more stuff than it is supposed to have is true.

But I agree the extended claims and cherry picking of national provinces is a problem; there are however some omissions of proper claims but that can be dealt with case by case.

I don't want to sound as a jackass obstructionist. I simply believe that Brian's insistence with that area is because of the canal bug. If this is the issue, then we can have it leased temporarily (say for two years or so) until Pocus haves a look at this. If not, it should revert back to Egypt, as the rest of the territories.

I am seriously afraid of bad precedents. Extended regions is a can of worms. At least some sort of affiliation with the land claimed should be there (ethnic, religious, even semi-historical: bring us evidence that it almost happened in real life or something). Or they should be objectives (F10 wise).

If you want more fun, I was always for creating more objective regions for minor nations using as template the "objective events" we have for major nations, applied to give a small probability to add new objectives. This way, who knows, Brazil might get Montevideo as an objective region.
(but research and historical facts are needed)

Limited events, border conflicts and claims omitted, procrustean fortification force pools (bascially the same regardless of size), nonexistince of fortress or garrison infantry or artillery models and thus no auto-garrisons either - as mentioned before, those rather than mobile forces should be the fundamental and core force in these countries. This is all OK for single player where South America is only for foreign investment. It is more awkward in MP.

I feel you in this. I just had my Greek fortress of Athens taken easily because there was no defensive force spawned. But I knew that already, it was my bad that I left Athens without a proper standing garrison, even a militia. Not something I was not aware of. My second mistake this last turn was even more silly, but I could not avoid it: I had my inbound armies in assault stance, but unfortunately the game treats a newly conquered fort as being in mint condition, meaning I assaulted my own fortress which was apparently undamaged, ergo the many hits the Greek army got. But it's ok, I was lucky I somehow lost only reserve units (I suspect they died first, because they are weaker) and the Ottomans lost a great deal of their force as well.

Yes, smallish nations indeed suffer more, but the auxiliary units and the rest of the facilities simply abstract the better battle-worthiness of majors in this era, they will not make you win or lose alone. As I said earlier, minor nations offset some of their deficiencies by the exaggerated effect of mobilization and their relatively large structure/force pools in respect to their size. Who can forget that even Sweden had launched a successful invasion of British Ireland a decade ago? Of course it had help from Germany, but this is expected.

What we really need to do, to avoid the bug of minor nations, is probably to set IsMajor to all playable minors to 1. And be done with it. (btw, we still need to fix the bogus 101% CP in Oman)
If you or Pocus find a working way to add auxiliaries to the minors, it will be more than welcome, but in the meantime it is not a catastrophic deficiency.

Not being able to buy more ships is OK with me since I can tell the countries that were ready to deliver ships to me to deliver them to the USA instead, where they can probably be used more effectively due to the better admirals the USA has. I don't mind playing by the rules, I just want to know exactly what the rules are. For example, I still have two junk units available in my build pool, does that mean I voluntarily should not build them due to my purchase of foreign ships?

Every nation can buy and sell ships as long as the force pools are respected. So yes, if USA wants to buy the extra stuff, it could always do this as long as its force pools allow this. After all, in this very case, it seems that indeed China called upon the USA to do its "dirty work".

Buy the ships from Sweden, but hopefully these are your last ships you buy until you somehow lose what you bought (to respect the force pools). And of course you can build your junk ships which are not as bad as you think you are for spying work. Btw, did you know that junk ships act also as transport ships of fortune? OK, don't dare to send them against dreadnaughts, but they are ok for some stuff.