Why don't you try to add it as an option for both side? The potential seller has the option to sell ships, if it activates it, then the buyer have an option appears... Sounds simple, but it involves a fair amount of scripting I know, though hopefully nothing new that you can't do right just be checking how the current options are done.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
Sir Garnet
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 pm
Sir Garnet wrote:(2) A debated question - is it total stocks or just amounts offered that factors into pricing?
I believe both, but I think stocks play a role more when one nations reports wastage.
Care to unify Germany as Austria? Recreate the Holy Roman Empire of the 20th Century:
Großdeutschland Mod
Are you tough enough to impersonate the Shogun and defy the Westerners? Prove it:
Shogun Defiance Mod (completed AAR)
Großdeutschland Mod
Are you tough enough to impersonate the Shogun and defy the Westerners? Prove it:
Shogun Defiance Mod (completed AAR)
I think there is something you might consider a feature, but I think is a bug. I believe that regions seized by Rebels should only be returned to their rightful owners if the nation that drives them away has passage rights OR a defensive alliance with the original nation that ruled that region AND cordial relations.
For example: let's say Russia attacks Japan in the middle of the Boshin War and lands in rebellious Hokkaido. The moment it defeats the rebels Russia will be kicked out of the region and it will return to Japanese hands. But Russia and Japan are rivals, why would it want to hand back the regions seized by rebels? I understand these are de jure and national areas of Japan, but the only way around this is to declare war to Japan.
We had a similar incident in our MP where GBR freed the rebellious islands of Crete, Dodecanese, and Cyprus with the initial idea to hand them to Greece. Instead, once the Rebels were defeated, the engine kicked the British troops out of the islands and the Ottomans conveniently moved in. Essentially we had cleared the islands for our rivals!!
I think if Rebels take over a region and that region is freed by someone else that one should be the new owner. It should fall to the OLD owner to reclaim the lost region, through war or other means. The old owner will still have its claims, but at least we won't see these counterintuitive teleportations, unless old and new owner have cordial relations and passage rights/defensive alliance.
For example: let's say Russia attacks Japan in the middle of the Boshin War and lands in rebellious Hokkaido. The moment it defeats the rebels Russia will be kicked out of the region and it will return to Japanese hands. But Russia and Japan are rivals, why would it want to hand back the regions seized by rebels? I understand these are de jure and national areas of Japan, but the only way around this is to declare war to Japan.
We had a similar incident in our MP where GBR freed the rebellious islands of Crete, Dodecanese, and Cyprus with the initial idea to hand them to Greece. Instead, once the Rebels were defeated, the engine kicked the British troops out of the islands and the Ottomans conveniently moved in. Essentially we had cleared the islands for our rivals!!
I think if Rebels take over a region and that region is freed by someone else that one should be the new owner. It should fall to the OLD owner to reclaim the lost region, through war or other means. The old owner will still have its claims, but at least we won't see these counterintuitive teleportations, unless old and new owner have cordial relations and passage rights/defensive alliance.
Care to unify Germany as Austria? Recreate the Holy Roman Empire of the 20th Century:
Großdeutschland Mod
Are you tough enough to impersonate the Shogun and defy the Westerners? Prove it:
Shogun Defiance Mod (completed AAR)
Großdeutschland Mod
Are you tough enough to impersonate the Shogun and defy the Westerners? Prove it:
Shogun Defiance Mod (completed AAR)
This is breaking things worse than they already are - the aggressor should be unable to enter rebel territory in these cases. The problem is that all rebels are in a single faction so everybody is at war with every rebel. Ideally it should be changed so that you are only at war with rebels that have the tag of a nation you are allied with - so Prussia and Austria can attack Hungarian rebels but not British rebels. This would then mean that if Britain is at war with Spain then it doesn't attack Spanish rebels. It would also solve an issue in the Italian unification where the presence of Piedmontese troops kills Garabaldi as they are "at war" - this would need a tag change on Garabaldi's troops as currently they have Piedmont's tag.Kensai wrote:I think there is something you might consider a feature, but I think is a bug. I believe that regions seized by Rebels should only be returned to their rightful owners if the nation that drives them away has passage rights OR a defensive alliance with the original nation that ruled that region AND cordial relations.
For example: let's say Russia attacks Japan in the middle of the Boshin War and lands in rebellious Hokkaido. The moment it defeats the rebels Russia will be kicked out of the region and it will return to Japanese hands. But Russia and Japan are rivals, why would it want to hand back the regions seized by rebels? I understand these are de jure and national areas of Japan, but the only way around this is to declare war to Japan.
We had a similar incident in our MP where GBR freed the rebellious islands of Crete, Dodecanese, and Cyprus with the initial idea to hand them to Greece. Instead, once the Rebels were defeated, the engine kicked the British troops out of the islands and the Ottomans conveniently moved in. Essentially we had cleared the islands for our rivals!!
I think if Rebels take over a region and that region is freed by someone else that one should be the new owner. It should fall to the OLD owner to reclaim the lost region, through war or other means. The old owner will still have its claims, but at least we won't see these counterintuitive teleportations, unless old and new owner have cordial relations and passage rights/defensive alliance.
The only reason Rebels have tags is to give them a flavor in the unit style. So to avoid seeing African-styled Rebels in Siberia or Indian-styled Rebels in Europe. Other than that, it should be totally WAD to be able to target unrecognized by the world community entities (ie rebels) wherever you see fit and claim their territories.
The system you propose adds another level of sophistication that is not needed. When the game has "rebels" that should not be simply attacked (like the CSA or the MUG) it gives them a specific tag and treats them like real nations. Otherwise, one nation should be able to claim rebel areas as if it was theirs, especially as in the examples I explained. The ousting of the British out of their allies claimed areas once they defeated the rebels is an unacceptably bad abstraction. The units magically teleported to a near region and even more disturbingly the seized regions were given gratis to our rival!
The system you propose adds another level of sophistication that is not needed. When the game has "rebels" that should not be simply attacked (like the CSA or the MUG) it gives them a specific tag and treats them like real nations. Otherwise, one nation should be able to claim rebel areas as if it was theirs, especially as in the examples I explained. The ousting of the British out of their allies claimed areas once they defeated the rebels is an unacceptably bad abstraction. The units magically teleported to a near region and even more disturbingly the seized regions were given gratis to our rival!
Care to unify Germany as Austria? Recreate the Holy Roman Empire of the 20th Century:
Großdeutschland Mod
Are you tough enough to impersonate the Shogun and defy the Westerners? Prove it:
Shogun Defiance Mod (completed AAR)
Großdeutschland Mod
Are you tough enough to impersonate the Shogun and defy the Westerners? Prove it:
Shogun Defiance Mod (completed AAR)
What they belong to or what they feel they belong to is already abstracted in other parameters:
1) ethnicity
2) loyalty
3) de jure or claimed status region by the original holder
Rebel regions should be free game for anyone. After all, I am not arguing here that the Ottomans had to lose their automatic CB for someone who usurps one of their former regions. I am simply saying that the current system that returns the regions to rivals is counterintuitive and hugely unrealistic.
It should fall to the original nation that lost her area reclaim her territory through a CB. Otherwise only it could be given automatically back if relations are cordial. But absolutely not handing them back to the potential enemy. My example of Japan makes even more sense. If Russia attacks the Bakufu, why should the territories be magically given to the Emperor. They are all 3 rivals!
The Emperor should be the one to DOW Russia in such cases.
1) ethnicity
2) loyalty
3) de jure or claimed status region by the original holder
Rebel regions should be free game for anyone. After all, I am not arguing here that the Ottomans had to lose their automatic CB for someone who usurps one of their former regions. I am simply saying that the current system that returns the regions to rivals is counterintuitive and hugely unrealistic.
It should fall to the original nation that lost her area reclaim her territory through a CB. Otherwise only it could be given automatically back if relations are cordial. But absolutely not handing them back to the potential enemy. My example of Japan makes even more sense. If Russia attacks the Bakufu, why should the territories be magically given to the Emperor. They are all 3 rivals!
The Emperor should be the one to DOW Russia in such cases.
Care to unify Germany as Austria? Recreate the Holy Roman Empire of the 20th Century:
Großdeutschland Mod
Are you tough enough to impersonate the Shogun and defy the Westerners? Prove it:
Shogun Defiance Mod (completed AAR)
Großdeutschland Mod
Are you tough enough to impersonate the Shogun and defy the Westerners? Prove it:
Shogun Defiance Mod (completed AAR)
As it appears that the GIN replacement chit problem has not been solved, there will still be a need for an additional patch. If so, I would like to add another bug: African tribes with artillery. I am playing as GBR and am now in 1890.I have been fighting a series of wars with African tribes. Every one of the tribes seems to have artillery. Fortunately for me, they are using muzzle loaded smoothbores and not more advanced techs, but having African tribes with cannon?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
-
Sir Garnet
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 pm
I think countries should be able to enter rebel held areas and to fight the rebels to restore order (or sit staring at them for that matter), probably keep military control depending on relations and passage/ally status, but not gain title to the terrain except in war resolution (if already at war with the region owner, no problems).
Helping rebels in another country should be by weakening the govt there any number of ways or by events.
Exception for foreign troops and rebels of same a nationality who would not normally fight each other.
Helping rebels in another country should be by weakening the govt there any number of ways or by events.
Exception for foreign troops and rebels of same a nationality who would not normally fight each other.
We are not going to split the Rebels into sub factions, that would be just too much to change, both in code and data. So, Rebels will remain free for all, sorry.
Now, what you say is weird, about the 'kick out' phenomenon, and if you have a save (before the expulsion and after) I would like to check it.
Military control:
is given automatically and all at once to legitimate owner, if you have a military treaty with him. Otherwise, is given by fraction of 5% per turn, if you are at peace. The code don't have a part about giving it if you are at war!
exclusive structures:
you can give back (or have your structures seized) if you have structures in foreign land, with legitimate owner relationship < 25 and at peace. Again, if at war and you have troops, you should not give structures back.
I don't see how you can be expelled from a region if you are at war with the owner... That would mean we would have bugs for each war, not only with rebels.
Now, what you say is weird, about the 'kick out' phenomenon, and if you have a save (before the expulsion and after) I would like to check it.
Military control:
is given automatically and all at once to legitimate owner, if you have a military treaty with him. Otherwise, is given by fraction of 5% per turn, if you are at peace. The code don't have a part about giving it if you are at war!
exclusive structures:
you can give back (or have your structures seized) if you have structures in foreign land, with legitimate owner relationship < 25 and at peace. Again, if at war and you have troops, you should not give structures back.
I don't see how you can be expelled from a region if you are at war with the owner... That would mean we would have bugs for each war, not only with rebels.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Sir Garnet wrote:(1) 2 letter typo correction
Diplomacy Screen: where "to" should be "by" in, for example, Supply Right Given to Portugal > Great Britain means given by Portugal to Britain, not "to Portugal".
(2) A debated question - is it total stocks or just amounts offered that factors into pricing?
(1) that's because the treaty is 'supply right given to', generated by portugal, on behalf of GB. This is not to be read as 'supply right given to Portugal, by GB' ...
(2) pricing is only affected by amount of offering / amount of demand. Stocks plays no role.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Kensai wrote:We had a similar incident in our MP where GBR freed the rebellious islands of Crete, Dodecanese, and Cyprus with the initial idea to hand them to Greece. Instead, once the Rebels were defeated, the engine kicked the British troops out of the islands and the Ottomans conveniently moved in. Essentially we had cleared the islands for our rivals!!
I think if Rebels take over a region and that region is freed by someone else that one should be the new owner. It should fall to the OLD owner to reclaim the lost region, through war or other means. The old owner will still have its claims, but at least we won't see these counterintuitive teleportations, unless old and new owner have cordial relations and passage rights/defensive alliance.
On the other hand, if you recall, when Prussia defeated (Polish) rebels in Lodz (a Russian territory), Prussia gained and has kept control Lodz.
Pocus wrote:I don't see how you can be expelled from a region if you are at war with the owner... That would mean we would have bugs for each war, not only with rebels.
They were not at war, just 'rivals'. British troops entered (Ottoman) territory held by rebels, defeated them and were 'teleported' to - supposedly - British held territory. Same happened to Russia: Russian forces entered Tabriz (Persia), defeated rebels and were 'teleported' to the nearest Russain region.
However, on the contrary, Prussian troops entered Lodz (Russia), defeated rebels and gained control of Lodz!
Could you, Pocus, confirm that the above difference is WAD?
Pocus wrote:I don't see how you can be expelled from a region if you are at war with the owner... That would mean we would have bugs for each war, not only with rebels.
They were not at war, just 'rivals'. British troops entered (Ottoman) territory held by rebels, defeated them and were 'teleported' to - supposedly - British held territory. Same happened to Russia: Russian forces entered Tabriz (Persia), defeated rebels and were 'teleported' to the nearest Russain region.
However, on the contrary, Prussian troops entered Lodz (Russia), defeated rebels and gained control of Lodz!
Could you, Pocus, confirm that the above difference is WAD?
It might be WAD if Lodz is de jure area for both Prussians and Russians. So they both have claim. In that case perhaps even Greece might have earned Dodecanese or Crete if it had attacked them directly (and not through her ally: the British).
In either case it makes no sense. A cleared rebel area should be property of whom it cleared it. The original nation has lost its property the moment of the rebellion. Notice: I don't imply losing de jure or claimed status as well, neither changes in ethnicity and loyalty. I simply desire to see this erroneous behavior of kicking out the new owners suppressed.
The Ottomans had lost the islands of Crete, Cyprus, Dodecanese to rebels. The British are not at war with the Ottomans, but they are certainly rivals of them as well as allies of Greece. The British freed the islands. The most correct approach would have been to keep the freed territories for themselves and, if relations are cordial and a DA are in place, give them back to the friendly ally (Greece) that has claims in these areas.
The second is perhaps too sophisticated to happen and code, but the first is almost indispensable to be fixed as a behavior: hand back rebel territories only to friendlies/allies that have claims! Otherwise you keep it.
It should have been the Ottomans in the lousy condition to have to play a CB against us, not us to them. It was us that liberated the territories from rebels, not them.
In either case it makes no sense. A cleared rebel area should be property of whom it cleared it. The original nation has lost its property the moment of the rebellion. Notice: I don't imply losing de jure or claimed status as well, neither changes in ethnicity and loyalty. I simply desire to see this erroneous behavior of kicking out the new owners suppressed.
The Ottomans had lost the islands of Crete, Cyprus, Dodecanese to rebels. The British are not at war with the Ottomans, but they are certainly rivals of them as well as allies of Greece. The British freed the islands. The most correct approach would have been to keep the freed territories for themselves and, if relations are cordial and a DA are in place, give them back to the friendly ally (Greece) that has claims in these areas.
The second is perhaps too sophisticated to happen and code, but the first is almost indispensable to be fixed as a behavior: hand back rebel territories only to friendlies/allies that have claims! Otherwise you keep it.
It should have been the Ottomans in the lousy condition to have to play a CB against us, not us to them. It was us that liberated the territories from rebels, not them.
Care to unify Germany as Austria? Recreate the Holy Roman Empire of the 20th Century:
Großdeutschland Mod
Are you tough enough to impersonate the Shogun and defy the Westerners? Prove it:
Shogun Defiance Mod (completed AAR)
Großdeutschland Mod
Are you tough enough to impersonate the Shogun and defy the Westerners? Prove it:
Shogun Defiance Mod (completed AAR)
-
yellow ribbon
- Posts: 2245
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 5:42 pm
Sir Garnet wrote:
(2) A debated question - is it total stocks or just amounts offered that factors into pricing?
ah, good lad M., remember that the stocks are important to define indirectly when the AI starts to trade at all and then in sudden bursts, manipulating the price thereby up to 400% and even more by sudden demand/offer for one turn or two...
the main reason why private modding was done last year, but to mount it on the original design is too large to be legal
...not paid by AGEOD.
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
however, prone to throw them into disarray.
PS:
‘Everything is very simple in War, but the simplest thing is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine exactly who has not seen War . . . in War, through the influence of an infinity of petty circumstances, which cannot properly be described on paper, things disappoint us, and we fall short of the mark.‘
Clausewitz
-
Generalisimo
- Posts: 4176
- Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:03 pm
- Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Contact: ICQ WLM
Le Ricain wrote:As it appears that the GIN replacement chit problem has not been solved, there will still be a need for an additional patch. If so, I would like to add another bug: African tribes with artillery. I am playing as GBR and am now in 1890.I have been fighting a series of wars with African tribes. Every one of the tribes seems to have artillery. Fortunately for me, they are using muzzle loaded smoothbores and not more advanced techs, but having African tribes with cannon?
There were some code updates to the way the tech upgrades happen, specially to subfactions.
I am sure this will have no effect on games started with previous versions of the game... so, it will not change anything on your end sadly.
About the african tribes with cannons... it is WAD AFAIK... the units+models are there so, sooner or later, they will receive them.
In the end, they may give you a little headache... but they are no match for your more upgraded troops.
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."
Napoleon Bonaparte
BOA-AAR: ¡Abajo el imperialismo Británico! (en español)
AGEOD Facebook Fanpage - news & screenshots about the upcoming games!
Napoleon Bonaparte
BOA-AAR: ¡Abajo el imperialismo Británico! (en español)
AGEOD Facebook Fanpage - news & screenshots about the upcoming games!
Jim-NC wrote:Another possible issue/bug:
In our MP game, it appears that playing a "stake" card doesn't seem to cause a crisis (or there may be rules we don't understand about their usage). Britain played a stake card 3 times in a row to stop Sardinia Piedmont from making a protectorate in Mogidishu. The 1st and 2nd time, nothing appeared to happen. Then on the 3rd try, with 1 turn left before the protectorate, the card was canceled and now S-P can't play again. This may be due to the fact that the territory now shows as British influenced (they are both at 35% CP).
In reply to post #5
The Stake mechanism was not optimal... It upped the probability to get a crisis, but the code was done in such way that there was some checks before that would prevent most of the time the crisis... So it is no wonder that you would manage only rarely something from a contest stake item.
This is changed, Stake should much more reliably now triggers something. But you have to remember that (partly as a safeguard) no crisis can be triggered if the 2 nations have 25+ relationship (which is not totally realistic, see Fachoda... The two nations were rather cordial, and this is also one of the reason why the French did not pull the trigger, although British might certainly played a part
).So, remember this rule: contest stake has a use only if your relationship with the target is 24 or less. Perhaps a 'Send diplomatic insult' item would have its use!
Note: don't post new demands or remarks on this thread, use the newer one. Only post there in relation to this post, thanks.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Generalisimo wrote:There were some code updates to the way the tech upgrades happen, specially to subfactions.
I am sure this will have no effect on games started with previous versions of the game... so, it will not change anything on your end sadly.
About the african tribes with cannons... it is WAD AFAIK... the units+models are there so, sooner or later, they will receive them.
In the end, they may give you a little headache... but they are no match for your more upgraded troops.
Ah yes, I do remember the discussions on the units+models. You are correct that their artillery is usually no match for the latter day upgraded troops.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
But the problem is you don't know the ethnicity etcetera of the rebels as they are units not regions - in Crete they could have been Greek rebels wanting to join Greece, Cretan rebels wanting be set up an independent Crete, Ottoman Christian rebels wanting more religious freedom, Ottoman rebels wanting to throw off central rule, or Ottoman rebels trying to take over the Empire. At the moment they are all just rebels and at war with everybody only because ll rebels are the same.Kensai wrote:What they belong to or what they feel they belong to is already abstracted in other parameters:
1) ethnicity
2) loyalty
3) de jure or claimed status region by the original holder
Rebel regions should be free game for anyone. After all, I am not arguing here that the Ottomans had to lose their automatic CB for someone who usurps one of their former regions. I am simply saying that the current system that returns the regions to rivals is counterintuitive and hugely unrealistic.
It should fall to the original nation that lost her area reclaim her territory through a CB. Otherwise only it could be given automatically back if relations are cordial. But absolutely not handing them back to the potential enemy. My example of Japan makes even more sense. If Russia attacks the Bakufu, why should the territories be magically given to the Emperor. They are all 3 rivals!
The Emperor should be the one to DOW Russia in such cases.
The problem was that the British went into rebel held Crete which was only possible because they were at war with the rebels as they were at peace with the Ottomans. Having occupied Crete thy then expected to own it and be able to keep it.Pocus wrote:We are not going to split the Rebels into sub factions, that would be just too much to change, both in code and data. So, Rebels will remain free for all, sorry.
Now, what you say is weird, about the 'kick out' phenomenon, and if you have a save (before the expulsion and after) I would like to check it.
I don't see how you can be expelled from a region if you are at war with the owner... That would mean we would have bugs for each war, not only with rebels.
The pricing appears to be off as most of the time prices appear to be on the floor, and we are certainly seeing prices dropping below maximum even when demand is several times supply.Pocus wrote:(2) pricing is only affected by amount of offering / amount of demand. Stocks plays no role.
We have had another economic crisis - don't think it is 2 years since the last one, not even convinced it is 48 turns since the previous one started.
ADDED: doing some estimation on how much contentment has risen since it ended I come up with a number that is quite close to 24 turns.
ADDED2: Doing some more checking it looks to be just over 48 turns.
-
Sir Garnet
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 pm
Pocus wrote:(1) that's because the treaty is 'supply right given to', generated by portugal, on behalf of GB. This is not to be read as 'supply right given to Portugal, by GB' ...
So it should appear as
Supply Right Given by Portugal > Great Britain
or
Supply Right Given Portugal > Great Britain
but not the confusing
Supply Right Given to Portugal > Great Britain
which says the right is given to Portugal
likewise Passage rights
Pocus wrote:In reply to post #5
The Stake mechanism was not optimal... It upped the probability to get a crisis, but the code was done in such way that there was some checks before that would prevent most of the time the crisis... So it is no wonder that you would manage only rarely something from a contest stake item.
This is changed, Stake should much more reliably now triggers something. But you have to remember that (partly as a safeguard) no crisis can be triggered if the 2 nations have 25+ relationship (which is not totally realistic, see Fachoda... The two nations were rather cordial, and this is also one of the reason why the French did not pull the trigger, although British might certainly played a part
So, remember this rule: contest stake has a use only if your relationship with the target is 24 or less. Perhaps a 'Send diplomatic insult' item would have its use!
Note: don't post new demands or remarks on this thread, use the newer one. Only post there in relation to this post, thanks.
Thank you for explaining this to me. It was a bit confusing to me.
Remember - The beatings will continue until morale improves.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
sagji wrote:But the problem is you don't know the ethnicity etcetera of the rebels as they are units not regions - in Crete they could have been Greek rebels wanting to join Greece, Cretan rebels wanting be set up an independent Crete, Ottoman Christian rebels wanting more religious freedom, Ottoman rebels wanting to throw off central rule, or Ottoman rebels trying to take over the Empire. At the moment they are all just rebels and at war with everybody only because ll rebels are the same.
This cannot be abstracted, so you come to my words, they should be independent and if destroyed the liberators should simply occupy the region. I complain about the gamey mechanic that kicks out the liberators and brings back the original owners (which can be the reason the rebellion happened or WORSE enemies of the liberators!!).
If this nation is friendly of the liberators, fine, it should be given back, but if it rival it should be not. Considering that Britain was allies with Greece and Greece had strong claims (ethnicity, loyalty, objective, etc) to the island, at least the engine should have attributed the island to Greece.
What you ask is to declare an unenecessary war with the Ottomans just to have claim on the islands that have lost. On other hand my own suggestion takes care of that through a defensive alliance and/or cordial relations.
The problem was that the British went into rebel held Crete which was only possible because they were at war with the rebels as they were at peace with the Ottomans. Having occupied Crete thy then expected to own it and be able to keep it.
You respond to me in game mechanics while I am talking about realistic situations. I don't care who had a claim on the island. I care that the island was NOT Ottoman and the British were friendlies with Greece which ALSO had claim. We shouldn't declare war on the Ottomans just to have the islands they DON'T OWN. Do you understand what happens? The Ottomans is as if they are selling us things they don't own.
It should be the Ottos to declare war on Britain/Greece if they want back the liberated islands, not the other way around. Otherwise it looks buggy and unrealistic.
---
Pocus, would it be possible to consider this fix in the code. Attribution of a seized rebel area according to the following parameters, in this order:
1) returned to the nation that was the original owner (if allied/cordial with the liberator)
2) returned to the nation that has claims, ethnicity, loyalty (if allied/cordial with the liberator)
3) otherwise the liberator keeps the rebel area and if it's de jure or claimed by the original owner an automatic CB for infringement will trigger anyway
Please, just please, eliminate the automatic return cause hugely unrealistic situations may happen, as the ones I explained in my examples.
If this was done in that order, in our game, the British liberators would have defeated the rebels and handed them back as expected to the Greeks where they had claims (Crete and Dodecanese- condition 2) while keeping Cyprus for themselves (condition 3). Condition 1 wouldn't have applied cause Britain wasn't friendly with the Ottomans, neither they had a DA.
This procedure fixes all other crazy situations I've explained, even covering the Prussian-Russia Lodz incident. It also works fine for synergic operations between allies, what we tried to simulate with GBR/GRE in the game and failed because the engine made a crazy decision to give the regions to our rivals who were kicked out of the islands.
Care to unify Germany as Austria? Recreate the Holy Roman Empire of the 20th Century:
Großdeutschland Mod
Are you tough enough to impersonate the Shogun and defy the Westerners? Prove it:
Shogun Defiance Mod (completed AAR)
Großdeutschland Mod
Are you tough enough to impersonate the Shogun and defy the Westerners? Prove it:
Shogun Defiance Mod (completed AAR)
Sir Garnet wrote:So it should appear as
Supply Right Given by Portugal > Great Britain
or
Supply Right Given Portugal > Great Britain
but not the confusing
Supply Right Given to Portugal > Great Britain
which says the right is given to Portugal
likewise Passage rights
Deal done, I can change the strings without changing anything in the interface code, so it's done!
@Kensai: After some thinking, I think it would be clearer & better to have some sample saves to test the cases... do you have some around?
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Sure, no problem. Just crunch this turn. It's Late July 1863 in our game, GBR's Williams has just liberated Dodecanese and has moved (technically kicked out by the engine) to face the rebels in Cyprus. If you crunch the turn you will see that after they've defeated the rebels in Cyprus and the MC has gone high enough they will be again kicked somewhere else (nearest region: friendly or rebel).
This shouldn't be the case. It's not realistic. We did this operation for Britain to liberate the islands for Greece to claim, instead they went back to their original (rival) owner. This should be done, imo, ONLY if the liberator (Britain) and the original owner (Ottoman Empire) have a defensive alliance.
[ATTACH]19097[/ATTACH]
I believe you can program it so regions that rebel can go back to their original owner only if there is DA with the guy who seized it. Then, ideally, the engine should check with the rest of the occupier's allies for claims in that same region and if they have DA, give it as well. Only if no one has claims or is hostile (not friendly) to the nation in question, only then the liberating nation can keep it for itself.
Btw, since we've made some custom changes to the game files (colonial areas, etc) you might get some strange errors, I suppose this is normal.
This shouldn't be the case. It's not realistic. We did this operation for Britain to liberate the islands for Greece to claim, instead they went back to their original (rival) owner. This should be done, imo, ONLY if the liberator (Britain) and the original owner (Ottoman Empire) have a defensive alliance.
[ATTACH]19097[/ATTACH]
I believe you can program it so regions that rebel can go back to their original owner only if there is DA with the guy who seized it. Then, ideally, the engine should check with the rest of the occupier's allies for claims in that same region and if they have DA, give it as well. Only if no one has claims or is hostile (not friendly) to the nation in question, only then the liberating nation can keep it for itself.
Btw, since we've made some custom changes to the game files (colonial areas, etc) you might get some strange errors, I suppose this is normal.
- Attachments
-
- GBR-Rebels.rar
- (3.17 MiB) Downloaded 209 times
Care to unify Germany as Austria? Recreate the Holy Roman Empire of the 20th Century:
Großdeutschland Mod
Are you tough enough to impersonate the Shogun and defy the Westerners? Prove it:
Shogun Defiance Mod (completed AAR)
Großdeutschland Mod
Are you tough enough to impersonate the Shogun and defy the Westerners? Prove it:
Shogun Defiance Mod (completed AAR)
GB not at war with Ottomans and you are suggesting rebellious Crete should be given to Greece for GB troops in the area .Did friendly GB and those who rebelled in the island want Enosis ? . But why Ottoman Empire should declare war to take it back.
I have suggested before there should be special crisis events for OE in balkans and island in the mediterian.
I have suggested before there should be special crisis events for OE in balkans and island in the mediterian.
Kensai wrote:This cannot be abstracted, so you come to my words, they should be independent and if destroyed the liberators should simply occupy the region. I complain about the gamey mechanic that kicks out the liberators and brings back the original owners (which can be the reason the rebellion happened or WORSE enemies of the liberators!!).
If this nation is friendly of the liberators, fine, it should be given back, but if it rival it should be not. Considering that Britain was allies with Greece and Greece had strong claims (ethnicity, loyalty, objective, etc) to the island, at least the engine should have attributed the island to Greece.
What you ask is to declare an unenecessary war with the Ottomans just to have claim on the islands that have lost. On other hand my own suggestion takes care of that through a defensive alliance and/or cordial relations.
You respond to me in game mechanics while I am talking about realistic situations. I don't care who had a claim on the island. I care that the island was NOT Ottoman and the British were friendlies with Greece which ALSO had claim. We shouldn't declare war on the Ottomans just to have the islands they DON'T OWN. Do you understand what happens? The Ottomans is as if they are selling us things they don't own.
It should be the Ottos to declare war on Britain/Greece if they want back the liberated islands, not the other way around. Otherwise it looks buggy and unrealistic.
---
Pocus, would it be possible to consider this fix in the code. Attribution of a seized rebel area according to the following parameters, in this order:
1) returned to the nation that was the original owner (if allied/cordial with the liberator)
2) returned to the nation that has claims, ethnicity, loyalty (if allied/cordial with the liberator)
3) otherwise the liberator keeps the rebel area and if it's de jure or claimed by the original owner an automatic CB for infringement will trigger anyway
Please, just please, eliminate the automatic return cause hugely unrealistic situations may happen, as the ones I explained in my examples.
If this was done in that order, in our game, the British liberators would have defeated the rebels and handed them back as expected to the Greeks where they had claims (Crete and Dodecanese- condition 2) while keeping Cyprus for themselves (condition 3). Condition 1 wouldn't have applied cause Britain wasn't friendly with the Ottomans, neither they had a DA.
This procedure fixes all other crazy situations I've explained, even covering the Prussian-Russia Lodz incident. It also works fine for synergic operations between allies, what we tried to simulate with GBR/GRE in the game and failed because the engine made a crazy decision to give the regions to our rivals who were kicked out of the islands.
But the rebels aren't necessarily anti-Ottoman they are merely anti-Ottoman government - in fact their lack of setting up a new nation / joining of an existing nation implies that they want to remain part of the Ottoman Empire.
There is also the fundamental problem of acceptable actions - no other nation would consider the British action as changing ownership, and thus every nation would consider the region as still Ottoman owned.
Your ideas are seriously wrong, and open to massive exploits - such as Prussia gaining Paris during the Franco Prussian war.
-
Sir Garnet
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 pm
What I care most about in this area is the ability to send forces in to to restore order by clearing rebels without being barred or having weird results. After a year and a day anyone should be able to go in. However the period of rebel control must be much longer before the pre-rebel owner loses rights to a conqueror OR someone else's claim.
sagji wrote:But the rebels aren't necessarily anti-Ottoman they are merely anti-Ottoman government - in fact their lack of setting up a new nation / joining of an existing nation implies that they want to remain part of the Ottoman Empire.
Fair enough. But their sentiment is portrayed in the metric called "loyalty". Since it was 50% Greek 50% Turkish, the engine should have allowed a Greek ally who claims that place to return it to its ally and NOT its rival which is counter-intuitive.
If it can't been done through code then the region should simply stay under the occupier. If he leaves, MC should rise slowly according to the powers in that region or new owners coming in. This is the most objective approach.
There is also the fundamental problem of acceptable actions - no other nation would consider the British action as changing ownership, and thus every nation would consider the region as still Ottoman owned.
I don't understand why anyone should consider a region that his been rebellious for almost a decade... Ottoman owned. The problem is exactly the opposite: that the region is attributed Turkish when the Ottomans have failed in every attempt of theirs to regain it.
Your ideas are seriously wrong, and open to massive exploits - such as Prussia gaining Paris during the Franco Prussian war.
How? You can't annex any of those areas if they are not claimed, de jure, or objectives. Britain would never annex Dodecanese, Cyprus, and Crete for the same reason. The exploit is the fact that the Ottomans got these regions by the military expeditions of their rivals who magically had their armies teleported away...
Sir Garnet wrote:However the period of rebel control must be much longer before the pre-rebel owner loses rights to a conqueror OR someone else's claim.
If am not mistaken, the Ottomans must have lost Crete since the beginning of our campaign (1850). By the way, the Prussian control of the island screws the scripted event of the second Cretan rebellion of 1866. I don't know if the guys did it on purpose or it was just a happy accident, but an exploit remains, as it doesn't portray the historical will of that population to unify with Greece.
Care to unify Germany as Austria? Recreate the Holy Roman Empire of the 20th Century:
Großdeutschland Mod
Are you tough enough to impersonate the Shogun and defy the Westerners? Prove it:
Shogun Defiance Mod (completed AAR)
Großdeutschland Mod
Are you tough enough to impersonate the Shogun and defy the Westerners? Prove it:
Shogun Defiance Mod (completed AAR)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests