I've just played the Franco Prussian War scenario with RC2 - the end score still shows an * - well not quite an * but that's the nearest character I've got to. Or more to the point it just doesn't show a number.
Also I thought I noticed a unit with no command usage but I can't remember if that is Ok.
-
Taillebois
- General of the Army
- Posts: 603
- Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:09 pm
- Location: Nr GCHQ Cheltenham
No it isn't because loyalty is nothing to do with legal ownership. Don't forget that at this time most of the nations of the world governments aren't based on loyalty of the population but on a fundamental right of the ruler to rule.Kensai wrote: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.
Because the rebels haven't changed its ownership - what if these are rebels that want to take over control of the Ottoman Empire, perhaps lead by a rival claimant to the throne. Few of the leaders of the time would have accepted a local rebellion as changing ownership as they would then be at risk of the same.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.
No the exploit is that Britain is able to enter Ottoman owned territory without declaring 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...
I am fairly certain it was later than that, as I think they regained control at the time of the Balikesir incident.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.
You keep trotting out this rebellion by why don't you fix it?
-
Francois Xavier
- Conscript
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 5:51 am
Sagji seems absolutely right. Unless there are historical examples proving this was a common occurence, I don't see why things should change. In the example given, Greece allied with GBR should have declared war on the Ottomans for those islands taking advantage of the situation, then invaded jointly leaving the Greek troops to accumulate MC.
I had the same happen to me as I was initially playing Japan trying to take over rebellious Taipei. I was annoyed at first, but then came to realize that it was an exploit for me to be able to declare war on those rebels in the first place.
However, could it instead be possible to instigate some kind of crisis in these situations? Would that make more sense?
I had the same happen to me as I was initially playing Japan trying to take over rebellious Taipei. I was annoyed at first, but then came to realize that it was an exploit for me to be able to declare war on those rebels in the first place.
However, could it instead be possible to instigate some kind of crisis in these situations? Would that make more sense?
Kensai wrote: as it doesn't portray the historical will of that population to unify with Greece.
Im not sure that was the historical will of the island in 1860's. I guess situation seems a bit like Cyprus situation 30 years ago. But didn't end up like in Krete.
At that time for Crete, Western pressure for Ottomans was about autonomous Crete. Greeks from Greece move to island to rebel Krete for Enosis. I'm not sure islanders want Enosis in the first place.
Ottomans did give up some claims for other lands but not Crete. It was not until 1890's they join the Greeks. Mainly because Ottomans could not resist as Balkans were also revolting. But historically if GB did want to give that island to Greece, she had to declare war on Ottomans in the first place.
The Cretans in Crete, Baris, wanted Enosis as bad as their lives. The reason you didn't see the union was because in real life the Ottomans suppressed the Cretan revolt of 1866-69, as they had done 40 years earlier. Otherwise, it would have went the other way.
---
Pocus, does the engine some time give unaccounted for Prestige penalties? In our MP game Greece got declared war by Austria and on that same turn lost enough prestige (unreported as you see in this screenshot) to go to negative. I attach the turn before so you can explain me why Greece gets this one. Could it be because Greece had played local support on other small nations and had its prestige damaged?
Also we had messages (later) that some nations actually GOT prestige instead of losing it. Bavaria and Württemberg which were allies of Prussia but were not declared war on by Greece and Great Britain.
Unless there is a serious balancing problem (tribal nations making silly diplomatic moves), please fix the Prestige to NOT be able to go in negative numbers as this screws diplomacy. You can't do diplomacy with negative VP at all. The 100 VP limit for forging CBs and declaring war should stay.
---
Also, consider another bug (feature?) as well. Messages regarding colonial actions should be announced when a nation first plays its colonial card, not AFTER the colonial actions has finished its effects. We have to be warned, especially for colony change of status early so we can play stakes.
---
Pocus, does the engine some time give unaccounted for Prestige penalties? In our MP game Greece got declared war by Austria and on that same turn lost enough prestige (unreported as you see in this screenshot) to go to negative. I attach the turn before so you can explain me why Greece gets this one. Could it be because Greece had played local support on other small nations and had its prestige damaged?
Also we had messages (later) that some nations actually GOT prestige instead of losing it. Bavaria and Württemberg which were allies of Prussia but were not declared war on by Greece and Great Britain.
Unless there is a serious balancing problem (tribal nations making silly diplomatic moves), please fix the Prestige to NOT be able to go in negative numbers as this screws diplomacy. You can't do diplomacy with negative VP at all. The 100 VP limit for forging CBs and declaring war should stay.
---
Also, consider another bug (feature?) as well. Messages regarding colonial actions should be announced when a nation first plays its colonial card, not AFTER the colonial actions has finished its effects. We have to be warned, especially for colony change of status early so we can play stakes.
- Attachments
-
- Greek VP penalty.rar
- (3.18 MiB) Downloaded 308 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)
I think you will find they were all allied with Prussia and lost prestige for not declaring war.Kensai wrote:Also we had messages (later) that some nations actually GOT prestige instead of losing it. Bavaria and Württemberg which were allies of Prussia but were not declared war on by Greece and Great Britain.
Austria was also allied with Prussia and lost prestige for not declaring war - in spite of declaring war on both Greece and Britain.
Another bug is when Austria declared war on Britain, Britain immediately started besieging Qatar - Britain's only force there is the garrison for a consulate but this is enough to besiege Austria's Fort plus govenor's mansion, port and depot, plus a real unit.
First a unit that outnumbered 10:1 should be unable to besiege.
Second it should be besieged.
Third it probably should not be in an Austrian colony in the first place. I suspect this is an artefact of handing over a colony while the consulate building wasn't present - so doesn't change ownership and then rebuilds for the previous owner.
First a unit that outnumbered 10:1 should be unable to besiege.
Second it should be besieged.
Third it probably should not be in an Austrian colony in the first place. I suspect this is an artefact of handing over a colony while the consulate building wasn't present - so doesn't change ownership and then rebuilds for the previous owner.
sagji wrote:I think you will find they were all allied with Prussia and lost prestige for not declaring war.
Austria was also allied with Prussia and lost prestige for not declaring war - in spite of declaring war on both Greece and Britain.
No they genuinely gained prestige, read the news at the bottom of last turn, it says gained. Its crazy xD
Kensai wrote:The Cretans in Crete, Baris, wanted Enosis as bad as their lives. The reason you didn't see the union was because in real life the Ottomans suppressed the Cretan revolt of 1866-69, as they had done 40 years earlier. Otherwise, it would have went the other way.
As you have said they were Cretans. I'm not sure sure they wanted union. They had/and still have some unique music(Nisiótika) and culture. That was the real problem for Greek and Turkish immigrants when there was exchange in population. They did have difficulties even in their home lands for their distinctive culture.
Enosis in Crete is purely political and fuelled by Greece . That's why I have suggested special political crisis in Ottomans before in game development. In this way it looks pretty much determinist to give İsland to Greece in game. And more funny thing is GB conquering the island and giving to Greece without declaring war to Ottomans which is not historical at all.
Another bug is that when you enter an enemy region with a fort you take a VP penalty for loosing buildings - it looks as if you are handed the building on entry, and then loose them at the end of the turn.
Another Issue is that a besieged fortress permits the besieged side full use of not just the factories in the city but the farms and mines outside.
What should probably happen is the besieger gets to use the farms and mines but without the benefit of railways (these being assumed to pass through the city whereas major roads also go round the city), while the besieged force gets to use the factories but without the benefit of anything more than minor roads (i.e. 15% transport efficiency) or a collection point outside the region - representing difficulty of getting goods in and out and that the workforce is busy defending the city.
Another Issue is that a besieged fortress permits the besieged side full use of not just the factories in the city but the farms and mines outside.
What should probably happen is the besieger gets to use the farms and mines but without the benefit of railways (these being assumed to pass through the city whereas major roads also go round the city), while the besieged force gets to use the factories but without the benefit of anything more than minor roads (i.e. 15% transport efficiency) or a collection point outside the region - representing difficulty of getting goods in and out and that the workforce is busy defending the city.
After some investigation of fortress combat.
The retreat problem is in the log at hitting the faction AutoRetreat level. At which point then entire forces of the faction retreat. This is quite easy to hit when assaulting a well defended fortress. Furthermore if you hit it you will retreat - even if you won the assault and wiped the defender out.
I think the auto retreat needs to look at circumstances, and consider less extreme options - if you are relatively strong in the region then units should simply revert to defensive. This means an assault will stop when you take significant casualties but the siege will continue. Not sure if it would also apply to units reacting into adjacent areas, but if it does then that would also be an improvement.
While investigating I noticed some other issues.
The battle report reports based on the faction with the most senior general on that side - even if that faction never committed any troops to the battle. Similarly the report lists all elements present in the region not just those involved in the battle.
If there are too many elements to show there is no indication of there being excess elements.
Elements are often coloured for the "lead" faction - while combining elements of the same type form different factions to save space is good it also needs to show that this isn't a single faction item. I have also seen losses marked as the lead faction when the lead faction contributed no units to the combat, and didn't have any elements of that type present in the region.
Coastal artillery acts as if field artillery during the assault. Coastal guns are emplaced and have restricted arcs (essential part of being protected from shore bombardment) it is therefore unlikely that they will be able to fire on troops assaulting the rear of the fortress. There should be a significant chance of them not committing to a round of combat.
According to the logs when evaluating trying to continue the battle (when below the auto retreat) it compares relative faction power. This means that the presence of a powerful force with defend, or retreat, orders will help a weak stack decide to continue to attack a stronger enemy. When deciding if it should attack it should only consider units on offensive or higher orders (and should probably consider forces that can react in)
When deciding if it should retreat then total power in the region (not just faction power) should be used.
Allied forces don't work well together - if one ally does most of the fighting on day 1 then they may hit the auto retreat level, and because this is done for the faction the presence of a large allied force won't stop it whereas if the same force was of its own faction it would. Allied forces should probably not be considered at full but that may make the calculation messy.
The retreat problem is in the log at hitting the faction AutoRetreat level. At which point then entire forces of the faction retreat. This is quite easy to hit when assaulting a well defended fortress. Furthermore if you hit it you will retreat - even if you won the assault and wiped the defender out.
I think the auto retreat needs to look at circumstances, and consider less extreme options - if you are relatively strong in the region then units should simply revert to defensive. This means an assault will stop when you take significant casualties but the siege will continue. Not sure if it would also apply to units reacting into adjacent areas, but if it does then that would also be an improvement.
While investigating I noticed some other issues.
The battle report reports based on the faction with the most senior general on that side - even if that faction never committed any troops to the battle. Similarly the report lists all elements present in the region not just those involved in the battle.
If there are too many elements to show there is no indication of there being excess elements.
Elements are often coloured for the "lead" faction - while combining elements of the same type form different factions to save space is good it also needs to show that this isn't a single faction item. I have also seen losses marked as the lead faction when the lead faction contributed no units to the combat, and didn't have any elements of that type present in the region.
Coastal artillery acts as if field artillery during the assault. Coastal guns are emplaced and have restricted arcs (essential part of being protected from shore bombardment) it is therefore unlikely that they will be able to fire on troops assaulting the rear of the fortress. There should be a significant chance of them not committing to a round of combat.
According to the logs when evaluating trying to continue the battle (when below the auto retreat) it compares relative faction power. This means that the presence of a powerful force with defend, or retreat, orders will help a weak stack decide to continue to attack a stronger enemy. When deciding if it should attack it should only consider units on offensive or higher orders (and should probably consider forces that can react in)
When deciding if it should retreat then total power in the region (not just faction power) should be used.
Allied forces don't work well together - if one ally does most of the fighting on day 1 then they may hit the auto retreat level, and because this is done for the faction the presence of a large allied force won't stop it whereas if the same force was of its own faction it would. Allied forces should probably not be considered at full but that may make the calculation messy.
There is a problem with neutral allies preventing change of control.
Piedmont DoWed Austria and has a DA with Spain.
Spain has a force in Romagna. Piedmont has a force in Bologna.
Austria moves a force in, MC rises to 95% - the limit without taking the city.
Then it assaults, this destroys the Piedmont defenders, and allows MC to rise to 100% but doesn't take the city, and doesn't exclude the Spanish forces.
Piedmont DoWed Austria and has a DA with Spain.
Spain has a force in Romagna. Piedmont has a force in Bologna.
Austria moves a force in, MC rises to 95% - the limit without taking the city.
Then it assaults, this destroys the Piedmont defenders, and allows MC to rise to 100% but doesn't take the city, and doesn't exclude the Spanish forces.
sagji wrote:After some investigation of fortress combat.
The retreat problem is in the log at hitting the faction AutoRetreat level. At which point then entire forces of the faction retreat. This is quite easy to hit when assaulting a well defended fortress. Furthermore if you hit it you will retreat - even if you won the assault and wiped the defender out.
Ok, autoretreat... Makes sense. Your sentence is not clear... if you wipe the defender, then you can't retreat by definition, as retreat is decided at the start of each round and if there is no defender, there is no chance the other side want to retreat.
I think the auto retreat needs to look at circumstances, and consider less extreme options - if you are relatively strong in the region then units should simply revert to defensive. This means an assault will stop when you take significant casualties but the siege will continue. Not sure if it would also apply to units reacting into adjacent areas, but if it does then that would also be an improvement.
Right, I revised the code. If you are in offensive/assault posture and you retreat from auto retreat (i.e before you rout), then the attack is simply called off. This means there is no move to an adjacent region and the posture becomes Defensive, not Passive. Should be better.
While investigating I noticed some other issues.
The battle report reports based on the faction with the most senior general on that side - even if that faction never committed any troops to the battle. Similarly the report lists all elements present in the region not just those involved in the battle.
If there are too many elements to show there is no indication of there being excess elements.
Elements are often coloured for the "lead" faction - while combining elements of the same type form different factions to save space is good it also needs to show that this isn't a single faction item. I have also seen losses marked as the lead faction when the lead faction contributed no units to the combat, and didn't have any elements of that type present in the region.
There are issues and limitation on the battle report, it is almost inchanged since 5 years. ROP introduced detailed battle report, by unit. The game after AJE will introduce something else, cleaner and clearer.
I'm not shocked to see the CiC (commander in chief of all allies in same region) displayed as the commander of the battle, even if his actual troops did not participate.
Coastal artillery acts as if field artillery during the assault. Coastal guns are emplaced and have restricted arcs (essential part of being protected from shore bombardment) it is therefore unlikely that they will be able to fire on troops assaulting the rear of the fortress. There should be a significant chance of them not committing to a round of combat.
We have an entry for that in the models database, called TargetType, it is either -1, 0 or 2. -1 (or NULL, the default value) means can fire at everything. 0 is land only, 2 is naval only. Perhaps it is not set correctly... or the code has a bug.
According to the logs when evaluating trying to continue the battle (when below the auto retreat) it compares relative faction power. This means that the presence of a powerful force with defend, or retreat, orders will help a weak stack decide to continue to attack a stronger enemy. When deciding if it should attack it should only consider units on offensive or higher orders (and should probably consider forces that can react in)
When deciding if it should retreat then total power in the region (not just faction power) should be used.
Allied forces don't work well together - if one ally does most of the fighting on day 1 then they may hit the auto retreat level, and because this is done for the faction the presence of a large allied force won't stop it whereas if the same force was of its own faction it would. Allied forces should probably not be considered at full but that may make the calculation messy.
[/QUOTE]
Forces in retreat or passive are not factored, as there is zero chance they get caught if the retreat is a success. Forces on the defensive are factored though, as it may happens that they are forced to engage themselves, if the other side is overwhelming the first side. Plus, it can be said that having the backup of a strong force, even if not engaged (you don't know if they will never be or are just waiting) is surely helping the morale of the troop and officers engaged...So this is debatable.
For the rest, yes, PON suffers from some code on 'allied cooperation'... But cooperation between allies is often much less reliable than us, modern day people, think... Even in WW2 it worked ... well, not everytime! Amusing anecdote from the Crimean War, Lord Raglan ordered his aide de camp to commit the British soldiers against ... the French... A Freudian slip, coming from his youth as aide de camp of Wellington no doubt. So cooperation, as in 'integrated command'... mmmh.
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
Pocus wrote:We have an entry for that in the models database, called TargetType, it is either -1, 0 or 2. -1 (or NULL, the default value) means can fire at everything. 0 is land only, 2 is naval only. Perhaps it is not set correctly... or the code has a bug.
Coastal guns could with preparation and especially preplanning be redeployed in whole or more likely in part for land defence, but not in optimal circumstances so I agree with Sagji that having only a chance of their involvement is much more reasonable than allowing full involvement against an assault. And of course among only 0 1 & 2 it does seem that 2 is the right option.
Similar story from a later war. Confederate veteran Joseph Wheeler, at age 62, served as MG of volunteers in Cuba during the Spanish-American War. At the battle of Las Guasimas, the general was heard to call out, "Let's go, boys! We got the damn Yankees on the run again!"; obviously confusing his wars.
[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
About database changes (i.e altering models data), plead your case by PM to PhilThib, Generalisimo and me. This is their turf and it is them who edit the database. I can certainly do that too, but I don't want to step on the feet of others people
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Pocus wrote:We have an entry for that in the models database, called TargetType, it is either -1, 0 or 2. -1 (or NULL, the default value) means can fire at everything. 0 is land only, 2 is naval only. Perhaps it is not set correctly... or the code has a bug.
Code has bug, because entry for coastal guns target types is 2 (restricted to Naval Targets only)
-
James D Burns
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:28 am
- Location: Salida, CA
Not sure if this is a bug or a feature, but in my current game as the US I’ve run into a rather strange phenomena. It appears no taxes are required for my economy to survive. How I reached this stage has occurred over the past 100+ turns or so, but I’ll give a brief rundown.
Basically militancy started to get out of hand very early in game with many regions hitting 20+ within the first year or so (I have no idea why as no messages ever tell me what is causing this…). So I tweaked down my default tax settings of 66% of the max level allowed (I set this level on turn one of my games) to 33% of the max level allowed to try and get the militancy under control.
After some time I was still having troubles, so as soon as the gold fields in California were discovered, I built the gold mines and turned down all tax levels to 1 except the excise tax, which I Had set to 13.
I used these settings for perhaps the past 70+ turns or so and had no trouble at all financially. Recently militancy has again gotten ugly and I have now tweaked down all the tax settings to the 1% level and have had no trouble making lots of cash over the past few turns with this new low setting. I suspect that I could turn off all my taxes and still stay in the green, but I don’t want to set anything to 0% in case it may have unforeseen consequences and cause corruption of the game or something.
Needless to say this just feels wrong, and is why I think there is perhaps a bug at work here. I noticed the excise tax max level changed from around 85 at game start to 55 now, so perhaps the low tax settings have done something to the economic engine. I always assumed that if I sold items at low tax levels, the best I could do is break even, but it appears price fluctuations make it possible to run your country with no taxes at all and still make a decent profit.
Here’s a save of my current turn if you need to look at it.
Basically militancy started to get out of hand very early in game with many regions hitting 20+ within the first year or so (I have no idea why as no messages ever tell me what is causing this…). So I tweaked down my default tax settings of 66% of the max level allowed (I set this level on turn one of my games) to 33% of the max level allowed to try and get the militancy under control.
After some time I was still having troubles, so as soon as the gold fields in California were discovered, I built the gold mines and turned down all tax levels to 1 except the excise tax, which I Had set to 13.
I used these settings for perhaps the past 70+ turns or so and had no trouble at all financially. Recently militancy has again gotten ugly and I have now tweaked down all the tax settings to the 1% level and have had no trouble making lots of cash over the past few turns with this new low setting. I suspect that I could turn off all my taxes and still stay in the green, but I don’t want to set anything to 0% in case it may have unforeseen consequences and cause corruption of the game or something.
Needless to say this just feels wrong, and is why I think there is perhaps a bug at work here. I noticed the excise tax max level changed from around 85 at game start to 55 now, so perhaps the low tax settings have done something to the economic engine. I always assumed that if I sold items at low tax levels, the best I could do is break even, but it appears price fluctuations make it possible to run your country with no taxes at all and still make a decent profit.
Here’s a save of my current turn if you need to look at it.
- Attachments
-
- USA.rar
- (3.01 MiB) Downloaded 263 times
Looking through the battle logs there is a table of unit stats at the start of each round. This lists ROF and initiative however both of these depend on range so vary within the round. Further looking at the battle details I can't see evidence of a unit getting any bonus for its RoF, certainly units with a RoF of 2 at the current range aren't listed twice nor is two results resolved in their shooting, nor any bonus listed for RoF.
-
Sir Garnet
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 pm
James D Burns wrote:Not sure if this is a bug or a feature, but in my current game as the US I’ve run into a rather strange phenomena. It appears no taxes are required for my economy to survive. . . . California were discovered, I built the gold mines and turned down all tax levels to 1 except the excise tax, which I Had set to 13.. . . .. I suspect that I could turn off all my taxes and still stay in the green,
Running the gov't on excise taxes - that's 19th C America, my friend!
James, taxes bring you only state funds, perhaps you don't need that much... Remember, your economy works on capital funds, that are earned by selling the products your economy produce... So you can very well have achieved a virtuous cycle here.
Militancy will raise eventually, even with low taxes. To reduces it you need to enact reforms.
Militancy will raise eventually, even with low taxes. To reduces it you need to enact reforms.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
sagji wrote:Looking through the battle logs there is a table of unit stats at the start of each round. This lists ROF and initiative however both of these depend on range so vary within the round. Further looking at the battle details I can't see evidence of a unit getting any bonus for its RoF, certainly units with a RoF of 2 at the current range aren't listed twice nor is two results resolved in their shooting, nor any bonus listed for RoF.
This is the table of selected subunits, involved for this round, with their actual ROF and initiative (sometime they get a penalty on it). This don't mean all these elements will fire, if they are out of range they won't. This lists what can attack or be hit.
ROF usage is a basis of the engine since the first game, you should see elements firing a number of time equals to their ROF.
Here is an excerpt from AACW
10:47:07 (Reporting) CSA 1001385 Chapman's & Jackson's Bty [Support] Round ROF: 2 Round Initiative: 8 BattleGround: Woods
10:47:07 (Reporting) Round: 0 Battle is now at range 5
10:47:07 (Reporting) There are 4 SU eligibles to attack at this range (5).
10:47:07 (Reporting) Picked: CSA Breckinridge Division 1001385 Chapman's & Jackson's Bty open fire
10:47:07 (Reporting) Defender 1002187 1st Maryland health: 20 Cohesion:70
10:47:07 (Reporting) There are 4 SU eligibles to attack at this range (5).
10:47:07 (Reporting) Picked: CSA Breckinridge Division 1001385 Chapman's & Jackson's Bty open fire
10:47:07 (Reporting) Defender 1002192 8th Pennsylvania health: 20 Cohesion:71
As you see Chapman's & Jackson's Bty fired twice in the round, as expected.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
James D Burns
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:28 am
- Location: Salida, CA
Don’t know if it will help with the loyalty issues or not, but the Moguls attacked Britain this turn in my game and it looks like every strategic city on the map gained some Mogul loyalty. Most of them already had some Turk and Rebel loyalty, so that must have occurred earlier in the game and I missed it.
Here’s a save of the current turn with a couple of the backup folders as well.
Here’s a save of the current turn with a couple of the backup folders as well.
- Attachments
-
- USA.rar
- (4.65 MiB) Downloaded 224 times
Let's wait for the next release candidate. I did two thing (well three, but two are linked):
a) the most probable culprit, code wise, is commented out
b) each turn you will see the removal of a few loyalty points if the loyalty appears non legit to the region. Speed depends of your National Identity attribute, with the aggressive one the one that will remove very fast odd loyalties
c) a new command in the console allows you to cleanse the map in one turn.
a) the most probable culprit, code wise, is commented out
b) each turn you will see the removal of a few loyalty points if the loyalty appears non legit to the region. Speed depends of your National Identity attribute, with the aggressive one the one that will remove very fast odd loyalties
c) a new command in the console allows you to cleanse the map in one turn.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
-
James D Burns
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 12:28 am
- Location: Salida, CA
Pocus wrote:James, taxes bring you only state funds, perhaps you don't need that much... Remember, your economy works on capital funds, that are earned by selling the products your economy produce... So you can very well have achieved a virtuous cycle here.
Militancy will raise eventually, even with low taxes. To reduces it you need to enact reforms.
Thanks Pocus, I’ve enacted every single reform that has become available, yet I still have 20+ militancy even with taxes set to 1. I’ve not seen this with other countries I’ve played though, so perhaps it’s specific to the US pre-civil war or something.
I recently had to raise taxes to 33% of the max level again as my fleet building program has used up most of the surplus the California gold mines were allowing me to pour into the states funds coffers. But up till about 2 turns ago or so it was still set to 1 and I was still getting strikes and riots even though I had played every reform allowed. Kentucky has been a real hotbed of rioting lately. Hopefully things will calm down after the civil war is fought.
PhilThib wrote:Code has bug, because entry for coastal guns target types is 2 (restricted to Naval Targets only)
This will need an example, because the code is super clear and I don't see how a bug can exist here.
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
Pocus wrote: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).
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.
Some important questions on Stakes. How does the parties being at war affect/prevent placement of a Stake contest for a protectorate? At minimum I would imagine ultimatum and mobilization leading to war are out. Does a successful contest still peacefully ninja the protectorate along with structures and CP from the resident player (expelling or destroying his troops depending on whether there is friendly terrain in range)?
Stake is upping greatly the chance of having a crisis between the two nations, but a crisis can't happen if you are already at war. So contest stake is de facto useless if you put it in a colony belonging to a country you are at war with.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests