PON/VGN 1.03 Second Release Candidate

[Pocus]

Hi all,

Here is a 2nd release candidate for 1.03, proposed as an all inclusive patch.

This is a PUBLIC BETA TEST. Please do not download nor use it if you don't want to take any risk with your current ongoing games.

There will be at least another release candidate, that will feature additional bugfixes and improvements.

I advise you to duplicate your current PON game and apply it there.

http://ageoddl.telechargement.fr/temp/Patch_PON_1.03RC2.zip

FIXES AND NOVELTIES 1.03RC2

Engine & AI

* Fixed regression bug leading to 0 upkeep. No more happy hour!
* Fixed issue with others’ nations scores not appearing in Objective window
* Lending support to another nation always give a CB against aggressor of said nation.
* MAJOR: structures upkeep and production is now ‘intermixed’. Before all structures would have to pay upkeep before anyone can produce. This will be much more easy for players and AI to run their economy.
* Defensive treaty prevents the use of any crisis agenda that can declare war or mobilize against the other country.
* You can now disembark troops from a fleet trapped in ice.
* Creeping loyalty bug is not reproducible in current engine version. Hopefully fixed!
* You now get state funds from foreign investments taxation (based on their worth and your corporate tax). If taxation is too heavy, foreign businessmen can protest (lowering your relationship slightly). There is a message on that just before the national market summary message.
* Contest Stake regional decision has been reworked and should trigger much more reliably. Remember though that its aim is to trigger a crisis, with the stake being the colonial area in contest, and that no crisis can ever happen between countries with 25+ relationship.
* Experimental & Major change: you can now place railways in foreign regions.
* GIN troops under GBR command reviewed, they should get replacements as others troops now.
* Structures built in foreign land cost more in capital funds (+ 100%, modified by a faction modifier named 'ForeignInvestMod')

Data or Events oriented changes
* Fixed China (and other minor nations) problem of not being able to use their Junks ships because of early updates that made obsolete the unit too early in the game.
* Fixed oil1 and oil2 structures sync problem (oil2 could appear BEFORE oil1).
* Upgraded REB faction to Unstable for gameplay reasons.
* Removed the merElectrical requirement for Shipyard2 Structure (was required way too early).
* Added the RI_Electrification requirement to all techs that activate structures that require merElectricals to operate to avoid the early need of merElectricals when actually you do not produce that resource (and most probably the rest of nations neither).

[Kensai]

Love it!
I see in the end you made the CB after local support 100% certain. That's good with me, no problem. We shall inform you if we notice abuse in this when we install the final v1.03 on our 24-nation MP. That game is probably the best stress test you can ever imagine. Human players abusing every parameter and gamification possibility!

Btw, cost of railways in foreign regions should be at least 2x of the local costs to avoid abuse. Both from players and AI. This is a balancing issue that may rise, accelarating the pace of the game. Also please consider lowering the colonialism options for every new game. Here's what we did in our name, I wish we had these changes since 1850.

[Random]

Thanks for this. Now showing PON Version 103RC1 at startup.

Also for some reason all of my industries are suddenly shutting down due to a lack of coal although I have 841 coal in stock and coal production and imports exceeds all consumption by about 18 coal per turn. I realize that the recommendation was to install in a fresh installation but have seen on occasion industries shut down due to lacking raw materials that were stockpiled in abundance. When this has happened, restarting them generally works but not in this case.

[ATTACH]19099[/ATTACH]

Save attached, thanks in advance for any enlightenment.

[Francois Xavier]

Download link is not working for me.

EDIT: Okay, it looks like there is a missing colon before the two forward slashes after the http in the address. Changing that fixed it for me.

[PhilThib]

Download link is not working for me.

EDIT: Okay, it looks like there is a missing colon before the two forward slashes after the http in the address. Changing that fixed it for me.

Thanks for spotting the error, link is fixed now.

[Pocus]

Please redownload RC2, changes compared to the first download are:

a) fixed issue of structures deactivating erroneously
b) fixed a bug preventing structures in foreign land to cost more
c) version number correctly updated.

Thanks for the saved game about (a)!

As for the colonial game, I'm ok with the spirit of the changes, we will discuss that further between ourselves before implementing it. Good move!

[Sir Garnet]

I think for the credibility of the game it is desirable to scale back colonial options to encourage a more historical game, though a one-size-fits-all ratio is procrustean.

I also think it's important to keep an option of accelerate colonization next to extended claims for people who want to go on alternate time lines.

One thing I noticed is that fewer cards mean it is more irksome not to have a turn counter showing how long i will be before the various cards are available again. That is of course because I no longer have an infallible memory for such details.

[glennbob]

Pocus, I would suggest adding laws and reforms for as many nations as possible. Then this stops the non-playables from going into a downward spiral of low contentment and low production, also, it allows them to build roads and the such. We have all files for lots of the nations on our MP game, for most South American countries, it makes the game far more enjoyable with more products reaching the market, and with all nations competing much more now.

Also, as for the GIN replacements, I tried it in an ongoing game where I had no GIN replacements and none were made, so I'm guessing it only works in new games?

[Kensai]

bob, these might need some fixes and tweaks. We simply copied the BELgian laws and decrees for the other nations and made small adaptations, such as giving 15 coal/steel/goods subsides instead of 30 for some nations. But other than that some other minor tweaks are needed: for example a partial mobilization should not ruin relations with Switzerland if you are Argentina!

Other than that, yes, if the game eventually gets more nations to be playable (nothing really difficult achieving this!), some further testing for inconsistencies is needed.

[sagji]

I think colonial matters need to be significantly changed, but I suspect it is more than can be done quickly.

As a recent example Piedmont in 1864 was starting to get its historical East African colonies to the point where it could form protectorates, when Britain comes in quickly gets to the same level and then plays the protectorate on them and then when they win the crisis plays colony.
One issue is that when there is a crisis for a protectorate the winner gains all the CP from the other side - the looser should loose most but not all. The winner should gain only a small part. So if the Looser kept 1/4 of their CP and the winner gained the same amount it would be better.

Another is that all decisions give CP way too fast. Gunboat diplomacy and Naval demonstration are especially bad, these let you go from almost no presence to able to play protectorate in a month.

[Sir Garnet]

Britain comes in quickly gets to the same level and then plays the protectorate on them and then when they win the crisis plays colony.

My bigger practical concern - this is a question - is that I understand that if Britain did not get CP to a protectorate level but just enough CP in the capital to play a stake to contest the protectorate, and there is a crisis and they win,[color="#FF0000"] everything Italian except troops changes to British (does CP change over?) while Italian troops teleport away. The British may not even have any troops in the area. If Italy wants to fight, it [/color]has to try to escalate the crisis. Even if it does get a war to defend the protectorate, Britain is in possession and Italy needs to come back and try to take it region by region, right? Which means any depots, forts etc. built will be now against them (getting auto-garrisons). Is that accurate in game terms?

[sagji]

My bigger practical concern - this is a question - is that I understand that if Britain did not get CP to a protectorate level but just enough CP in the capital to play a stake to contest the protectorate, and there is a crisis and they win,[color="#FF0000"] everything Italian except troops changes to British (does CP change over?) while Italian troops teleport away. The British may not even have any troops in the area. If Italy wants to fight, it [/color]has to try to escalate the crisis. Even if it does get a war to defend the protectorate, Britain is in possession and Italy needs to come back and try to take it region by region, right? Which means any depots, forts etc. built will be now against them (getting auto-garrisons). Is that accurate in game terms?

I think it must have had more than the minimum 10% in the capital, as its CP afterwards was 70%, and Italy can only get to 35%.

Another silly with the teleport is that the indigenous are teleported out of their own nation.
A third is that if there is a crisis then the initiator's troops are teleported out, then the crisis occurs and if they win the original declarer's troops get teleported out.
I suspect the problem is that a protectorate is a magical entity that you have virtually no defence against against. It should be up to the nation that creates the protectorate to enforce it.

I think that as a minimum it should not teleport troops out, and the presence of troops should be a requirement.

[squidelica]

bob, these might need some fixes and tweaks. We simply copied the BELgian laws and decrees for the other nations and made small adaptations, such as giving 15 coal/steel/goods subsides instead of 30 for some nations. But other than that some other minor tweaks are needed: for example a partial mobilization should not ruin relations with Switzerland if you are Argentina!

Other than that, yes, if the game eventually gets more nations to be playable (nothing really difficult achieving this!), some further testing for inconsistencies is needed.

have you considered posting that as a mod

[nemethand]

FIXES AND NOVELTIES 1.03RC2


Data or Events oriented changes
[
* Upgraded REB faction to Unstable for gameplay reasons.

What's the affect of this?

[Kensai]

squidelica, not before we have adapted them to be perfect for each nation.

nemethand, this probably means REBels are more resilient.

[MarkCSA]

Quick post, played all weekend.

-Playing S-P, I am swimming in Private Capital by 1857

-The Great Coal Shortage of 1854-55 is overcome by the AI by massive production of coal mines. All stable by 1857.

-Still overproduction of many goods, especially Steel, 800 units on sale, nobody buying. Is it even used by anyone?

-Rebels overrunning much of Egypt, Ottoman Empire and even Italy (the parts that I am not running). Any chance of the Rebels (whom I suspect are nationalists) seeing the light and joining up with me?

Apart from having more money than God by 1857, and nothing to spend it on, all good. Some minor cosmetic issues, which I will log later.

[glennbob]

If you're producing too much steel, and no one is buying, then stop making it. As Britain I normally shut down production of steel early on, because all other nations supply more than enough on the international market to supplement my needs. How much capital is swimming in capital?

[MarkCSA]

If you're producing too much steel, and no one is buying, then stop making it. As Britain I normally shut down production of steel early on, because all other nations supply more than enough on the international market to supplement my needs. How much capital is swimming in capital?

I turned off my steel producing buildings years ago, it's the AI countries that overproduce. Swimming in Capital is about 1750-2000 with almost nothing to spend it on. Net gain 200ish a turn. Should have clarified that. Also, this is RC 1.

[glennbob]

I turned off my steel producing buildings years ago, it's the AI countries that overproduce. Swimming in Capital is about 1750-2000 with almost nothing to spend it on. Net gain 200ish a turn. Should have clarified that. Also, this is RC 1.

Tha isn't swimming in capital, wait til you get to 1875-1880ish, you will be getting between 1000-2000 per turn at least. It's fine, I wouldn't worry about the AI overproducing steel, their loss :P Just produce Luxury Goods and Manufactured Goods, and you will go a long way

[MarkCSA]

Tha isn't swimming in capital, wait til you get to 1875-1880ish, you will be getting between 1000-2000 per turn at least. It's fine, I wouldn't worry about the AI overproducing steel, their loss :P Just produce Luxury Goods and Manufactured Goods, and you will go a long way

For my understanding, I am already losing 50 to 75 capital each turn from having it up to that level, is there something I can do to expand my 'vault' ?

[glennbob]

Well I was speaking of having that much money when I was playing as Great Britain, I think you will find on your private capital expenses that you are funding the "emergance of new businessman". This will happen every so often, but you will make more money eventually, it works out alright, but if you have nothing to spend it on, then don't worry about it :P

[MarkCSA]

Well I was speaking of having that much money when I was playing as Great Britain, I think you will find on your private capital expenses that you are funding the "emergance of new businessman". This will happen every so often, but you will make more money eventually, it works out alright, but if you have nothing to spend it on, then don't worry about it :P

I figured "emergence of new businessmen" was an in-game money sink to remove excess cash from the game?

[Pocus]

I figured "emergence of new businessmen" was an in-game money sink to remove excess cash from the game?

Yes, but this was a temporary measure. I now got time to have this micro feature more fun... You'll get some needed merchandises in exchange of that 'sink'.

[Pocus]

I think colonial matters need to be significantly changed, but I suspect it is more than can be done quickly.

As a recent example Piedmont in 1864 was starting to get its historical East African colonies to the point where it could form protectorates, when Britain comes in quickly gets to the same level and then plays the protectorate on them and then when they win the crisis plays colony.
One issue is that when there is a crisis for a protectorate the winner gains all the CP from the other side - the looser should loose most but not all. The winner should gain only a small part. So if the Looser kept 1/4 of their CP and the winner gained the same amount it would be better.

Another is that all decisions give CP way too fast. Gunboat diplomacy and Naval demonstration are especially bad, these let you go from almost no presence to able to play protectorate in a month.

I'm all for the addition of measured new regional decisions for minors (both on national soil, like road construction) or for colonies, but this would need more refinements than just duplicating Belgium values indeed.

You are right about gunboat diplomacy and naval demonstration. Their big advantage is that they are done in one turn, so for the rest, they will be toned down significantly. Each decision must propose a specific aspect or angle of approach that renders it somehow unique. These two are fast to deploy, that's their 'signature', so they can't be 'good' also on others parameters. Thanks for the remark.

[Kensai]

Good catch. Pocus, some more pondering on the fortress assault mechanism left us thinking that perhaps it is not so broken as we thought it was. Perhaps you were right all along that breached fortresses are indeed breached. However, please add the suggested tweaking for ammo consumption and more casualties/starving for the besieged (especially for large forces in smaller fortresses!) to make it more realistic.

[sagji]

The conceptual problem I have isn't that they are different it is that you can play them multiple turns in a row in the same area and get a blitz protectorate. I also don't think they should add CP is doesn't feel right for a show of force - perhaps they should remove other nations CP and move you to the first nation, and perhaps they should regenerate once per year rather than being every turn.

There may be effects on fortresses being breached - however when breached it says they give no benefit whatsoever however that isn't true - they still permit the entire defending stack a much higher level of entrenchment.
There is also the issue that assaulting is an all or nothing action - if you don't take the fortress the assaulting force will be totally eliminated and any other besiegers that weren't involved (e.g. were in defensive) are forced to retreat.
And the defender does get to rotate forces - part of the problem is that the defender can have a much larger force than can fight at once and suffers no combat penalty. In practice once the defender's force became large sitting in the fortifications became a significant handicap not an advantage.

[Sir Garnet]

There may be effects on fortresses being breached - however when breached it says they give no benefit whatsoever however that isn't true - they still permit the entire defending stack a much higher level of entrenchment.

Breaches are hardly easy going, and there are further defenses behind. At best it is difficult going, slowing the attackers. Rubble is also great for defenders not committed to close order formations, and building breastworks.

There is also the issue that assaulting is an all or nothing action - if you don't take the fortress the assaulting force will be totally eliminated and any other besiegers that weren't involved (e.g. were in defensive) are forced to retreat.

I admit I have not failed an assault in a very long time but I don't recall retreating from the siege.

Who is totally eliminated? The elements in the assault frontage (plausible) or the attacking division/corps/force entirely?

[Pocus]

I don't see why in the case of assault, calling it off would be impossible, the code don't differentiate anything on that. Try to assault with a conservative ROE e.g

As for siege itself, I have added rules on ammo usage and attrition in past RC, try it out...

[Kensai]

sagji, what you describe is quite different from my own experience in assaults both in PON and other AGEOD titles that mostly share the same battle code. As Garnet says, if you fail the assault you simply stay there. Are you sure you weren't beaten by an army that sallied forth? Otherwise the besieger stays put, even if he had lost.

If Pocus has already added some more damage for the besieged under cannon siege, especially if a huge force in a small fort, then we are all set, it fixes most unrealistic situations.

Pocus, please consider beefing the damage done to enemy trade ships and fleets in MBTs as well. Right now and since v1.02 brought repairing of trade ships in MBTs, destroying the rival mercantile capability is pretty difficult if not impossible. I believe the probability of encounter is pretty low, unless this is WAD because we are relatively early in the game.

Any advice how to rise this probability under current rules? I guess a fleet with a Raider Admiral and warships with high Patrol values (frigates, corvettes, etc), right?!

[Boernes]

Well, this is a game set in the 19th and early 20th century. Spotting a ship in the middle of an ocean should be as hard as it can get. You have to get in visual range to spot it, and in gun range to actually fight it.

On the other hand, will blockaded ports really limit a nations trading capabilities?