From the manual it appears that war weariness accrues with time even if successful in a war, and that its effect is to reduce National Morale over time.
Is there any other effect of War Weariness other than through National Morale?
It is affected by the attributes of government as described in the manual. Does WW accrue regardless of the nature and severity of the war, or how many wars are in effect? Does a peace reset it or just cause it to decline over time.
The scenario that concerns me is WW's effect when being at permanent war when seeking to avoid the problems of the IsMajor=No bug that prevent passage and supply rights of any kind being used while at peace. Does being nominally at war with a tribal (which may or may not actually have any troops) count as much as war with a substantial power?
Sir Garnet
-
Sir Garnet
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 pm
WW will eventually drop your contentment, that's the problem. If this will happen sooner than later depends on many factors. For example, in our game, occupied Greece is losing contentment slowly (if it had bigger consumption it would have happened faster) because its capital is occupied and there are no sales in its territory. If it is not freed anytime soon, riots will soon start and eventually force it to come to peace terms.
I don't think WW is a problem against tribal nations. The IsMajor bug is a kind of non-bug or at least a bug as you see it. It was probably in to avoid allowing minor nations venture in places it is not realistic to venture (for example a 1860s Brazilian expedition in China!
)... but yeah, I think it could be fixed. However the main feature of IsMajor=0 is that it prevents minor nations to be global players regarding trade capabilities, etc. And that's a correct abstraction, imo, albeit frustrating.
I don't think WW is a problem against tribal nations. The IsMajor bug is a kind of non-bug or at least a bug as you see it. It was probably in to avoid allowing minor nations venture in places it is not realistic to venture (for example a 1860s Brazilian expedition in China!
)... but yeah, I think it could be fixed. However the main feature of IsMajor=0 is that it prevents minor nations to be global players regarding trade capabilities, etc. And that's a correct abstraction, imo, albeit frustrating.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
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 pm
I agree WW should not be a problem against tribal nations but need to know the source of discontent since all goods are available, lots of policing is present, and this seems to be the only possibility unless there is an unemployment dynamic or just a leftover from the loyalty situation.
The comment is a digression in part, but anything that destroys units with transit rights if peace occurs can't be justified by any historical event so must be considered a bug in the feature.
The IsMajor=No feature also prevents minors from obtaining the normal benefits of alliance military intelligence - this appears to be designed in but is hard to understand especially since the AI minors need all the info they can get for their AI (but maybe it helps save processing time - something which would not apply for human players).
Your wise comment regarding the Taiping rebels and heretics I disagree with as it made sense in context as a basis for relations given the options available. And it is a red herring since the bug prevents as well as supply and transit into neighboring countries and ports as well as overseas.
The trade restriction is only a correct abstraction if it achieves the right effects. Historically, the US overseas merchant marine in the 19th C was weak as the resources that might have gone that way were focused on enormous internal development and transportation. The same applied to other countries focused on internal development, and these were able to rely on the world's merchant marine to effectively sell their products, which does not happen in game. The US is given a workaround by being allowed a merchant marine that circumvents the game restriction - and building its own merchant marine is what would have been forced historically if the market had been obstructed such as by a "national bottoms" treaty. The same should apply to other countries with maritime capabiltiies. So what is the basis for thinking it is a correct (i.e., unflawed) abstraction? Similarly, there were minors with extensive merchant marines that are not fairly represented by the restriction. Again, a question.
A better abstraction as you call it would be to allow countries to sell through foreign merchant marines in the destination trade box, at which point the merchant marine are just a source of revenue.
In either type of fix, force pool restrictions on merchant marine are reasonable.
Kensai wrote:The IsMajor bug is a kind of non-bug or at least a bug as you see it. It was probably in to avoid allowing minor nations venture in places it is not realistic to venture (for example a 1860s Brazilian expedition in China!
The comment is a digression in part, but anything that destroys units with transit rights if peace occurs can't be justified by any historical event so must be considered a bug in the feature.
The IsMajor=No feature also prevents minors from obtaining the normal benefits of alliance military intelligence - this appears to be designed in but is hard to understand especially since the AI minors need all the info they can get for their AI (but maybe it helps save processing time - something which would not apply for human players).
Your wise comment regarding the Taiping rebels and heretics I disagree with as it made sense in context as a basis for relations given the options available. And it is a red herring since the bug prevents as well as supply and transit into neighboring countries and ports as well as overseas.
The trade restriction is only a correct abstraction if it achieves the right effects. Historically, the US overseas merchant marine in the 19th C was weak as the resources that might have gone that way were focused on enormous internal development and transportation. The same applied to other countries focused on internal development, and these were able to rely on the world's merchant marine to effectively sell their products, which does not happen in game. The US is given a workaround by being allowed a merchant marine that circumvents the game restriction - and building its own merchant marine is what would have been forced historically if the market had been obstructed such as by a "national bottoms" treaty. The same should apply to other countries with maritime capabiltiies. So what is the basis for thinking it is a correct (i.e., unflawed) abstraction? Similarly, there were minors with extensive merchant marines that are not fairly represented by the restriction. Again, a question.
A better abstraction as you call it would be to allow countries to sell through foreign merchant marines in the destination trade box, at which point the merchant marine are just a source of revenue.
In either type of fix, force pool restrictions on merchant marine are reasonable.
Major nations are the big influencers in the game. They are the superpowers of the era. Minor (secondary) nations are under the umbrella of some majors and use their infrastructure or trade capabilities to prosper until they have created their own trade fleets.
Brazil has already Portugal for this. Greece has Great Britain. Mexico has USA, etc. Obviously you cannot find the exact historical analogy, but it's a fair abstraction, otherwise smaller nations get more than what should be capable of realistically. The fact that Greece does not have a serious direct transaction with say Peru, is a fair abstraction. If it needs something Peruvian, it will get it from one of the Great Powers which act as the intermediaries.
If you need to trade with every nation no one stops you. Create trade ships (if you can) and send them to every MTB that counts. The most important ones are few after all.
Brazil has already Portugal for this. Greece has Great Britain. Mexico has USA, etc. Obviously you cannot find the exact historical analogy, but it's a fair abstraction, otherwise smaller nations get more than what should be capable of realistically. The fact that Greece does not have a serious direct transaction with say Peru, is a fair abstraction. If it needs something Peruvian, it will get it from one of the Great Powers which act as the intermediaries.
If you need to trade with every nation no one stops you. Create trade ships (if you can) and send them to every MTB that counts. The most important ones are few after all.
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
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 pm
The superpower term is inappropriate to a period of no more than Great and Secondary and Minor powers. For US and Mexico (which don't really interact that much) the US economy is 4 times or so bigger than Mexico. For Britain and Greece the ratio it is much more. For Portugal and Brazil thr ratio is the opposite - Portugal is at best a secondary power by any measure but the resource-limited Portuguese economy is one quarter or less that of Brazil's production (and Portugal has half the population) so the example does not fit what you are trying to say.
Spain, Portugal, and even tiny Denmark have the IsMajor turned on. I'm not sure how functional it is, however, since Spain reports that you also need a ruler with "Major" rating set to allow normal trade (don't know how this affects the other properties). I assume the same is the case with Portugal and Sweden.
It may be a vain effort to enunciate a consistent principle.
Back to my topic: However the transit rights bug is something which given sufficient resources ought to be fixed - but if tribals don't cause war weariness effects then a perpetual war on some tribe is a workaound for the destruction bug. It costs 6 turns of VP to DOW them in this case, but if active for (one hopes) the game it amortizes to a very low cost per turn.
There does not seem to be a consistent rationale
My original question is just about war weariness and the destruction bug.
It seems a strange comment as you can't sell via trade fleets without a major tag and major-tagged ruler. Spain and Portugal and even tiny Denmark may have the tag, but for trade purposes they lack the ruler.
Spain, Portugal, and even tiny Denmark have the IsMajor turned on. I'm not sure how functional it is, however, since Spain reports that you also need a ruler with "Major" rating set to allow normal trade (don't know how this affects the other properties). I assume the same is the case with Portugal and Sweden.
It may be a vain effort to enunciate a consistent principle.
Back to my topic: However the transit rights bug is something which given sufficient resources ought to be fixed - but if tribals don't cause war weariness effects then a perpetual war on some tribe is a workaound for the destruction bug. It costs 6 turns of VP to DOW them in this case, but if active for (one hopes) the game it amortizes to a very low cost per turn.
There does not seem to be a consistent rationale
My original question is just about war weariness and the destruction bug.
It seems a strange comment as you can't sell via trade fleets without a major tag and major-tagged ruler. Spain and Portugal and even tiny Denmark may have the tag, but for trade purposes they lack the ruler.
No matter how Brazil was bigger, richer in resources, and more populous than Portugal, in this era was still trailing in most aspects, including prestige and infrastructure. Portugal was still the nation of reference regarding Portuguese-speaking territories. This is accurately portrayed in the game. There is a consistency. I believe the IsMajor is given to nations that have "one more gear" so to speak to become global colonial players of their own. Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands can all become much quicker colonial powers than Brazil, Greece, etc. This a historical consistency, probably, to portray the interests of the rulers. You are not Don Pedro. You are simply an entity that plays Don Pedro. You will have to live with that. Brazil was 40 years before 1860 a colony itself. It still has huge territories of Amazon forest to discover. Why should it even care about most things beyond the continent (or the hemisphere to be more accurate)?
If you want to fix the bug, ask the devs explicitly to fix the bug. The IsMajor aspect works as intended, it's a feature of balance. Moreover, we should be extremely economical regarding the nations that we turn on as Major as this is computationally intensive. Brazil in the 19th century was the old colonial sidekick of Portugal. Play it as that.
What is your problem? You can't sell or you can't buy? Selling is done by other nations coming to you and every major is already on the Brazilian coast. If other minor nations (say Greece) were interested into buying directly from Brazil they would have sent a trade fleet. But why should they when they can buy from other major nations (as was mostly the case in this era anyway)?
Regarding buying stuff from markets apart the major of the game, send your own trade ships in the respective MTBs and you should be able. Simply by sending one in the Mediterranean and you have access to Egypt, Greece, the Ottoman Empire.
If you want to fix the bug, ask the devs explicitly to fix the bug. The IsMajor aspect works as intended, it's a feature of balance. Moreover, we should be extremely economical regarding the nations that we turn on as Major as this is computationally intensive. Brazil in the 19th century was the old colonial sidekick of Portugal. Play it as that.
It seems a strange comment as you can't sell via trade fleets without a major tag and major-tagged ruler. Spain and Portugal and even tiny Denmark may have the tag, but for trade purposes they lack the ruler.
What is your problem? You can't sell or you can't buy? Selling is done by other nations coming to you and every major is already on the Brazilian coast. If other minor nations (say Greece) were interested into buying directly from Brazil they would have sent a trade fleet. But why should they when they can buy from other major nations (as was mostly the case in this era anyway)?
Regarding buying stuff from markets apart the major of the game, send your own trade ships in the respective MTBs and you should be able. Simply by sending one in the Mediterranean and you have access to Egypt, Greece, the Ottoman Empire.
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
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 pm
I am comforted by your explanation since if that is your understanding of history then what you say makes some sense for the first 3 decades of the century but does not correspond to the historical reality of mid- and late-century. It's rather like the English referring to the US dismissively as the colonies, a mere British spawn and sidekick. I suggest you re-evaluate your view of development, economic status, and prestige after spending a few hours background reading on Brazil, and Portugal if you wish.
On the colonial front, both the US and Brazil were occupied with internal development. The US colonial options are to develop the West, not expand overseas until the closing of the west and a change of political culture in 1898, yet in game can be devoted safely to the latter purpose while letting the West almost automatically turn into states. Certainly questionable. Sending gunboats etc. was open to all naval powers.
Countries want products but the majors don't resell in sufficient volume so they can't purchase and I can't sell. This places a cap on exports. This is evident by checking supplied and demanded amounts in various MTBs. On historical grounds, the US should have a similar problem due to its reliance on foreign bottoms.
Other than being a country intended to be playable, what is Major status supposed to represent?
On the colonial front, both the US and Brazil were occupied with internal development. The US colonial options are to develop the West, not expand overseas until the closing of the west and a change of political culture in 1898, yet in game can be devoted safely to the latter purpose while letting the West almost automatically turn into states. Certainly questionable. Sending gunboats etc. was open to all naval powers.
What is your problem? You can't sell or you can't buy? Selling is done by other nations coming to you and every major is already on the Brazilian coast. If other minor nations (say Greece) were interested into buying directly from Brazil they would have sent a trade fleet. But why should they when they can buy from other major nations (as was mostly the case in this era anyway)?
Countries want products but the majors don't resell in sufficient volume so they can't purchase and I can't sell. This places a cap on exports. This is evident by checking supplied and demanded amounts in various MTBs. On historical grounds, the US should have a similar problem due to its reliance on foreign bottoms.
Other than being a country intended to be playable, what is Major status supposed to represent?
Sir Garnet wrote:I am comforted by your explanation since if that is your understanding of history then what you say makes some sense for the first 3 decades of the century but does not correspond to the historical reality of mid- and late-century. It's rather like the English referring to the US dismissively as the colonies, a mere British spawn and sidekick. I suggest you re-evaluate your view of development, economic status, and prestige after spending a few hours background reading on Brazil, and Portugal if you wish.
Brazil was not a colonial power. Portugal was a colonial power. This is history. Play with each country's handicap as it is represented.
On the colonial front, both the US and Brazil were occupied with internal development. The US colonial options are to develop the West, not expand overseas until the closing of the west and a change of political culture in 1898, yet in game can be devoted safely to the latter purpose while letting the West almost automatically turn into states. Certainly questionable. Sending gunboats etc. was open to all naval powers.
Maybe. But in our alternate reality USA finished its civil war earlier and Abraham Lincoln was not assassinated. coolbean simply entertains this idea given that the platform permits it. Let me remind you that if it was up to me I would have been even more aggressive curtailing colonial actions before a certain date. But people wouldn't listen.
Countries want products but the majors don't resell in sufficient volume so they can't purchase and I can't sell. This places a cap on exports. This is evident by checking supplied and demanded amounts in various MTBs. On historical grounds, the US should have a similar problem due to its reliance on foreign bottoms.
That's a different problem. Convince the countries through diplomacy (they are human players after all!) to make available the products you wish. Institute commercial agreements, improve relations, add 25% premium to succeed in your transactions. Not being able to buy everything in harsh competition is WAD and a fact of life.
Other than being a country intended to be playable, what is Major status supposed to represent?
It's a balance issue. Minor countries mean countries that historically were mostly introversive with limited or not at all possibility of becoming colonial powers of their own. That's the difference between Portugal and Brazil.
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 see there is tension here 
IsMajor concept has been created to reduce computing. Its definition is that the 'flag' is given to all major organized nations plus all the ones which were either commercial or colonial powers... As you know, adding too much IsMajor nations augments computing.
I don't remember nor see an additional condition on the ruler. When this problem appears exactly?
About WW. WW happens when you are 'at war', whatever the intensity of it. If war becomes ugly, you'll anyway lose national morale because of lost regions or troopers, so there is no need to set a double-punishment here with an increased WW.
You are at war when you have a diplomatic item 'war' existing between you and another nation. If you have a tribal with negative relationships with you, you can fight him, but this is not a 'war' for the engine. So I don't think Sir Garnet trick can work.
But, if the problem is 'just' that nations which are at peace and are not with the IsMajor tag loses some benefits like shared fog of war, I can probably always allow human controlled nations to get the full thing... But I won't do that for all AIs, or IsMajor would become pointless.
IsMajor concept has been created to reduce computing. Its definition is that the 'flag' is given to all major organized nations plus all the ones which were either commercial or colonial powers... As you know, adding too much IsMajor nations augments computing.
I don't remember nor see an additional condition on the ruler. When this problem appears exactly?
About WW. WW happens when you are 'at war', whatever the intensity of it. If war becomes ugly, you'll anyway lose national morale because of lost regions or troopers, so there is no need to set a double-punishment here with an increased WW.
You are at war when you have a diplomatic item 'war' existing between you and another nation. If you have a tribal with negative relationships with you, you can fight him, but this is not a 'war' for the engine. So I don't think Sir Garnet trick can work.
But, if the problem is 'just' that nations which are at peace and are not with the IsMajor tag loses some benefits like shared fog of war, I can probably always allow human controlled nations to get the full thing... But I won't do that for all AIs, or IsMajor would become pointless.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Pocus wrote:I see there is tension here
IsMajor concept has been created to reduce computing. Its definition is that the 'flag' is given to all major organized nations plus all the ones which were either commercial or colonial powers... As you know, adding too much IsMajor nations augments computing.
I don't remember nor see an additional condition on the ruler. When this problem appears exactly?
About WW. WW happens when you are 'at war', whatever the intensity of it. If war becomes ugly, you'll anyway lose national morale because of lost regions or troopers, so there is no need to set a double-punishment here with an increased WW.
You are at war when you have a diplomatic item 'war' existing between you and another nation. If you have a tribal with negative relationships with you, you can fight him, but this is not a 'war' for the engine. So I don't think Sir Garnet trick can work.
But, if the problem is 'just' that nations which are at peace and are not with the IsMajor tag loses some benefits like shared fog of war, I can probably always allow human controlled nations to get the full thing... But I won't do that for all AIs, or IsMajor would become pointless.
The question about the ruler is due to trading. In our MP game, I play Spain, and as such, I can buy from anywhere that I place ships in the MTB. However, they can not purchase from me. The issue is, how do I as Spain sell to Mexico? They have no fleet, and my fleet is not a 2 way conduit for trade. My ships in the Carribean MTB (I think that's the name), allow me to purchase as much Mexican gold as I wish, but I can not sell a single bottle of wine to them. I must sell to France/England/Prussia, etc, and hope they sell to Mexico.
We had been told that there was an attribute regarding the ruler that effected that.
Remember - The beatings will continue until morale improves.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
The other place it can be is the F1 Ruler attribute regarding the state of the country. But it can be somewhere else altogether. Indeed it sounds frustrating, but if playable not major organized nations such as Belgium (Minor) or the Ottoman Empire (Unorganized) can't trade directly either, maybe it is WAD. However, I suspect there is somewhere else a flag that marks a nation as special. For example, how do we make secondary nations appear in the Prestige ranking in the main screen?
I know it may be frustrating, but somehow the devs had to simulate traffic in this era being done primarily by major nations (superpowers of the era) which acted as conduits for global trade. What's more important as Spain is to be able to buy from a far away land of your own will. I seriously doubt that Spain cannot sell its own merchandise even if its only clients are the major nations of this world. In our game Japan was a loyal customer of Spain before the changes of Emperor Meiji and it will be again* again.
Mexico and Persia not having fleets are exceptions in not having a single fleet, it's not that big deal. And we will fix this eventually through scripts or the "order ship" button.
*technically, if some of our players paid with more care regarding the health of the world economy (ie in an open, non mercantilistic way) I would have bought already from Spain. I first select minor nations though....
I know it may be frustrating, but somehow the devs had to simulate traffic in this era being done primarily by major nations (superpowers of the era) which acted as conduits for global trade. What's more important as Spain is to be able to buy from a far away land of your own will. I seriously doubt that Spain cannot sell its own merchandise even if its only clients are the major nations of this world. In our game Japan was a loyal customer of Spain before the changes of Emperor Meiji and it will be again* again.
Mexico and Persia not having fleets are exceptions in not having a single fleet, it's not that big deal. And we will fix this eventually through scripts or the "order ship" button.
*technically, if some of our players paid with more care regarding the health of the world economy (ie in an open, non mercantilistic way) I would have bought already from Spain. I first select minor nations though....
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
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 pm
[(1) Pocus, the initial question was if being "at war" eventually causes unrest directly except through NM?
If so, that would make it worthwhile to avoid being "at war" too much. If so, the question is also how long a peace it takes for WW to wear off?
I am unclear if you meant that WW increases over time if "at war" (declared war = one showing on the diplomacy interfact) whether major power or tribal enemy and whether fighting or not, or just that it means the NM changes from the course of the war apply.
Brazil is at war with the Lunda tribe by declaring war for the purpose of avoiding the transit bug. Since DOW on a tribal costs 6 turns of prestige, going to war and making peace on and off as needed can erode a limited prestige pool considerably. Therefore it is important to know if being "at war" is directly causing unrest.
A more common case is Portgual "at war" with the Lunda to pacify their territory. If Portugal makes "peace" with the tribal by treaty, they might still fight due to hostility but not be "at war." If you make a peace treaty with a tribal, do you give back any territory if disputed or fully controlled by you?
(2) Pocus, as Jim said - whether or not IsMajor=1 for a "minor" power, the minor cannot sell via merchants. He mentioned something about there not being a major ruler, so it would be necessary to clone and modify the ruler and then kill the old one by script or otherwise and replace with the cloned RUL file to allow such trade.
My hypothesis is that the relevant RUL file line is
FactionOrganization = $fatMinorOrganizedNation
rather than
FactionOrganization = $fatOrganizedNation
I found this line as being the likely candidate, but have not checked it in the database to see exactly what other change it might cause. I am assuming this change takes effect when the game loads, and not just on a new game - so as described above one needs to just get rid of the old ruler and replace with the clone.
(3) @Kensai - I wish to emphasize that I have no trouble buying. Just an inability to sell where there is unsatisfied demand in MTBs where I have merchants, so there are orders unfilled in other MTBs while there is surplus to sell in mine. This is very important for a large trading nation, which by production and especially trade volume Brazil is in game - both because it has to be to export its raw materials and also by policy making a market (though only for adjoining countries). Portugal in the 1860s does not have the population and resource base to be a large exporter and thus capital to be a large trader.
One remedy you mentioned is to ask a country able to sell freely to buy up my stockpile and act as middleman - however, that takes effort plus working capital so more PC so more risk of a financial crisis just from working capital alone without even counting free PC.
If so, that would make it worthwhile to avoid being "at war" too much. If so, the question is also how long a peace it takes for WW to wear off?
I am unclear if you meant that WW increases over time if "at war" (declared war = one showing on the diplomacy interfact) whether major power or tribal enemy and whether fighting or not, or just that it means the NM changes from the course of the war apply.
Brazil is at war with the Lunda tribe by declaring war for the purpose of avoiding the transit bug. Since DOW on a tribal costs 6 turns of prestige, going to war and making peace on and off as needed can erode a limited prestige pool considerably. Therefore it is important to know if being "at war" is directly causing unrest.
A more common case is Portgual "at war" with the Lunda to pacify their territory. If Portugal makes "peace" with the tribal by treaty, they might still fight due to hostility but not be "at war." If you make a peace treaty with a tribal, do you give back any territory if disputed or fully controlled by you?
(2) Pocus, as Jim said - whether or not IsMajor=1 for a "minor" power, the minor cannot sell via merchants. He mentioned something about there not being a major ruler, so it would be necessary to clone and modify the ruler and then kill the old one by script or otherwise and replace with the cloned RUL file to allow such trade.
My hypothesis is that the relevant RUL file line is
FactionOrganization = $fatMinorOrganizedNation
rather than
FactionOrganization = $fatOrganizedNation
I found this line as being the likely candidate, but have not checked it in the database to see exactly what other change it might cause. I am assuming this change takes effect when the game loads, and not just on a new game - so as described above one needs to just get rid of the old ruler and replace with the clone.
(3) @Kensai - I wish to emphasize that I have no trouble buying. Just an inability to sell where there is unsatisfied demand in MTBs where I have merchants, so there are orders unfilled in other MTBs while there is surplus to sell in mine. This is very important for a large trading nation, which by production and especially trade volume Brazil is in game - both because it has to be to export its raw materials and also by policy making a market (though only for adjoining countries). Portugal in the 1860s does not have the population and resource base to be a large exporter and thus capital to be a large trader.
One remedy you mentioned is to ask a country able to sell freely to buy up my stockpile and act as middleman - however, that takes effort plus working capital so more PC so more risk of a financial crisis just from working capital alone without even counting free PC.
But what you mean "sell" is really a non problem. The others come to you to buy. Just make the products/resources available. The only difference from major nations is that there is no need for the minors to have a trade ship. So essentially the minors buy from you indirectly (via the majors) but not directly. But this is normal. It's an abstraction that not all nations back then had sufficient trade fleets in place to be direct trading powers.
Moreover, it has been said some times, theoretical demand is always higher than actual transactions even in so-called direct deals, as private capital might finish BEFORE the transaction takes place.
Moreover, it has been said some times, theoretical demand is always higher than actual transactions even in so-called direct deals, as private capital might finish BEFORE the transaction takes place.
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 must check the code for some complementary answers but I can already tell you that war weariness is the action of having morale reduced by war, and only that, i.e this is not as in the Paradox games where there is an actual value called WW, that reduces slightly as state of peace exists. So as soon as you are at peace, WW is not existing in PON. A too low morale reduces contentment, but if you manage to maintain NM at a reasonable level during war, then you don't suffer from added discontentment (or militancy)
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
About IsMajor and the extra need of a ruler with such and such attribute... Things are complex to follow for me without clear examples (and some hours just for PON). So I'll sound like a broken record, but please prepare me a kind of 'intervention sheet' for this matter: a saved game showing the unwanted effects, a description of the problem, perhaps a reference to this thread, then make a zip of that and deposit it in a folder in your drop box PBEM. Once I get time, I'll proceed through these issues one by one (you can even sort them by priority with a number before the file, 1 being highest).
I also remember that you would have liked to add more colonial decisions to some nations. If you have come with an agreement with who should get what, you can also add that.
I also remember that you would have liked to add more colonial decisions to some nations. If you have come with an agreement with who should get what, you can also add that.
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
I will create a subfolder named Pocus in the Dropbox where we shall insert specific examples, saves, requests, comments, etc for you to investigate when you have time. Good idea!
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 12 guests