PON2-Subforumvolunteer developing team wishlist

[Christophe.Barot]

this one is for requesting developments helping to script to improve gameplay, historical accuracy, and chrome of game

it has a vocation to be clear, short, and very precise :

first request : is it possible to develop (easily) a [color="#40E0D0"]global peace[/color] (and not separate) - being defined by "a peace with enemy and his current allies, from oneself and onse current allies")

problem is of course who in alliance could choose - we are back to a "leader of alliance" problematics

I tend to say that
- if a player is allied with AI, the player chooses (OK, allows some exploit, but it's his game after all
- if a major (one of the big 8) is allied with another power, the major chooses (realistic and common 19th century practise, we the Powers have decided you will cede this province to ..)
- problem arises if allies of roughly same size, then :
- between majors, initiating of war (attacker of defender) should be the leader
- an ally with a national province stake should be the leader if another nation hasn't - then with objectiv/without objective at stake ususlly comes with the former - especially if crisis

of course we need safeguards :
no ally must be forced to cede provinces or colonies - or more simply allies provinces and colonies can't be offered (btw this will lead us to second request, gains for allies)
if a peace if too frustrating for an ally, there should be a penalty, signifiant, in terms of relations, and even one's national morale (people are dismayed by the way we treat our allies, it's honourless)


those systems are used currently in Victoria, Europa Universalis, hearts of Iron, must be possible (still cost of coding timewise)


next requests :
obtaining provinces or colonies for allies

getting military control of allies units

[Jim-NC]

I have a question/request:

How do we keep an ally in a war? I have seen several examples of the AI declaring war, then declaring peace 1 turn later. Thus they avoid the penalty for not declaring war, but they don't have to worry about contentment or anything.

[Christophe.Barot]

we can compare forces, either naval and land, by regeval (to be continued), Regsum, Regactivate , for example this :

SelectFaction = $GBR

RegInit = 3
SelectSubUnits = FactionTags GBR;Families $famHvyWarship $famLightWarship $famRaiderShip $famHvyCoastalShip $famLitCoastalShip $famCarrierShip $famSubmarine

SelectFaction = $FRA
RegInit = 4
SelectSubUnits = FactionTags FRA;Families $famHvyWarship $famLightWarship $famRaiderShip $famHvyCoastalShip $famLitCoastalShip $famCarrierShip $famSubmarine

SelectFaction = $RUS
RegInit = 5
SelectSubUnits = FactionTags RUS;Families $famHvyWarship $famLightWarship $famRaiderShip $famHvyCoastalShip $famLitCoastalShip $famCarrierShip $famSubmarine

RegInit = 6
RegSum = Registry 4 5
RegEval = 3;>;6
RegDeactivate = NULL

but in this example we are forced to consider France and Russia allied, we must assume Whitehall or Downing Street (foreign affairs or PM) anticipate their potential alliance - herre, rather OK but what if we want to consider present situation , that is add russian forces only if they are allkied to France or support France

for example
SelectFaction = $RUS
Reginit = 5
SelectSubUnits = FactionTags RUS;[color="#FF0000"]EvalDiploItem = FRA;$diAllianceTreaty[/color];Families $famHvyWarship $famLightWarship $famRaiderShip $famHvyCoastalShip $famLitCoastalShip $famCarrierShip $famSubmarine

in this case the value of 5th register would be taken into account only if Russia is France ally, else would be set to zero and so can be added without adding it strength

is it implementable ? heavy load of work ?

ditto could we then have [color="#FF0000"]the same condition for support ? and the same for "support or alliance"[/color] I know by Pocus AI takes botyh in con,sideration, it would be very handy for yoyr scripters to have the same tools at our s disposal (as us coding won't happen any soon I am afraid, competende aeren't developed that fast )

[Christophe.Barot]

this feature seems important to me, and historically realist

gameplay wise, it's a rare feature which will be used, if implemented, by player, not to exploit and abuse it but (as it is usually to give assets to another nation, not his own) to improve historical accuracy/credibility of his game

will rarely be used by AI (hard to teachj her, but still useful

this feature exists in Europa Universalis (so is well known by PhilThib), and is handy (only problem is that having it lmimited to occupation of province by the ally is too limiting and not accurate enough - criteria must be claim) - not sure it exists in Victoria (but in Victoria the alliance system seems rather rich in tnhe sens that you can exclude a target from alliance

Idea is that, if, let's say France trouces Austria soundly, France may want to give Lombardy to Italy, not anything for him (and which one, Austrian territory is not claimed by France, we're not back to napoleon the first folks, no Istrian provinces or Tyrol) , or Russia may rather have Bulgaria get Rumelia or Serbia get Kosovo or makedonia than getting kars for herself

in real life it was possible - in EU too, here not (yet)

is it possible to get this feature - and what the assessment of task difficulty (yes hardly with next patch i guess)

[Christophe.Barot]

[color="#FF0000"]edited 31/12/2013[/color]

basic points :

its is extremely frustrating not being able to coordinate allies moves, as they happened in war :

- Italian second independance war (Risorgimento) ITA-FRA
- Crimean war : FRA-GBR - TUR-ITA
- Franco Prussian war GER- BAV WUR BAD SAX
- Boxer expedition GBR RUS GER USA FRA JAP ITA AUS
- Sudan Mahdi war GBR EGY
- Balkan wars BUL RUM SER MON GRE or RUM SER MON GRE
- Great War : FRA GBR BEL / GER AUS / RUS RUM / GER AUS BUL / FRA GBR SER GRE / FRA GBR ITA

could code consider that BELLIGERANT allied armies, WARTIME are in a common side :

- they still cannot mix but
- AI consider moves common on a theater and coordinate stacks in same or neighbouring provinces
- PLAYER has capacity to move allied units wartime (if common enemy) still
- AI can take back control
- any losses incurring following player moving allied units have adverse effect on player and VP morale, not AI country, and
- if losses incurred by AI "too high", control is receded and not given against for duration of war (from level of losses depends if AI will give control to player in another war or not)
valid only in a solo game (in a multiplayer, problem is solved by direct contact and coordination/negociation) and if multiple allies, AI has not to ask to which player to obey

[Christophe.Barot]

will develop this point later

- Danish straits (reservation if germany/denmark at war)
- Bosphorus
- Gibraltar
- Tunisia/Sicily

check Kiel Suez Panama plays their role

[Christophe.Barot]

will develop this point later

[Christophe.Barot]

will develop this point later

- we have "global" support

- support limited to one antagonist

SelectFaction = RUS

add DiploItem = GER;$DiDipsupport; AUS

- support limited to an area

SelectFaction = ITA

add DiploItem = FRA;$DiDipsupport; $Morroco

to develop

[loki100]

I have a question/request:

How do we keep an ally in a war? I have seen several examples of the AI declaring war, then declaring peace 1 turn later. Thus they avoid the penalty for not declaring war, but they don't have to worry about contentment or anything.

Jim

I'm not sure how it works but the 'DI:FullWar' is meant to give a different level of commitment than a simple 'DiWar'.

As it is, I agree, I've seen the AI (in AI-AI) conflicts opt out quickly or it drag on to no gain for ages. Suspect its something we need to file under 'Pocus knows'?

Roger

[Christophe.Barot]

this one shouldn't be very difficult

conversely I suggest to still keep the Italian one form the start, i know the historical one at start is Savoy-Piedmont, but as long as Italy hardly unites, and many variable factors (Tuscany, Rome, Sicily, Loki is presently taking care of), I think Italian player will feel better with Italian flag - with Savoy blazon, still carries historical flavour

edit : apparently already there, just be sure event fires cortrectly when one doesn't like me, use save to test, remove, reimplant save ....

[Christophe.Barot]

be able to test warscore, just like AI is, so we can have more in depth peace conditions than just morale or instantaneous (can be retaken) control of a key province

.... while apparently, there is this one I missed :

AddDiploItem = TargetFac; DIDefUID [; StartDate yyyy/mm/dd][color="#40E0D0"][;Warscore][/color]

never saw it used in scripts still there is some explaination :

Warscore
Optional parameter, if you are scripting a war diplomatic item (date is mandatory in this case). This is the WarScore that the "owning" faction has on the "target" faction that is specified by <TargetFac>.

still having warscore usable as a general condition (after all, there is some pointer in program keeping present warscxore in memory, so must be testable), and warscore [color="#FF0000"]can't presently be used to general event orders (like settle whitepeace) [/color]