From Europa Universalis 4 Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

C - This article is considered a C-class article on the wiki quality scale


So my thought is this thing should look like EU3's page, hopefully more up to date though. I'll put in the catagory headers for each of the events catagories in the EU4 events folder, we can work from there to format and fill out what each event does.

Ok, screw that. This can be better organized and the country events can be broken down by nation. The colony revolt events and such too. Imo, I'll put everything that makes sense with itself in one folder and work off that. Change the various religious ones all to fall under their own collum instead of "Catholic" "Hindu" etc.

I think what might work best is to base the "categories" on the event files. E.G., "AmericanRevolution.txt" being one "category", "Buildings.txt" being another, and so on. Then each file could have an individual wiki page with more detail about each event than just its name. ~ Meneth (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2013 (CEST)

Median Section deletion[edit]

Deleted the section that said it wasn't a mean but was a median. This isn't true. Since it can happen in an infinite number of days, the median is infinity. The number given as MTTH is a mean. By definition, integrating a continuous function from 0 to the mean will be 50% of the area under the curve, which the section deleted said in an overly wordy manner.

Don't you mean that the mean is infinity, not the median? Either way, that paragraph wasn't really necessary, I agree. ~ Meneth (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2013 (CET)
Neither mean nor median is infinity. Please read e.g. Poisson distribution which has nonzero probability for any positive value but has finite mean and median. 50% of the area under a PDF is the median, not the mean. Note that while [1] mentions a CDF F, the integral is not of F dx, but rather of dF. --Evil4Zerggin (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2013 (CET)
The criticism is completely unjustified. The median is by definition the point of 50% probability. The proof was given in the next paragraph, and someone added a graph illustrating it, and there already was a wikipedia link to the geometric deistribution *that gives the correct mean and median*. On the other hand, the mean is the expected value of the variable, which is an integral not of the probability density function, but rather of x*p(x), and not to any halfway point, but on the entire domain. 04:27, 7 January 2014 (CET)

"Country-Specific" events section[edit]

I'm not sure we need a section solely for country-specific event links. It's not that full right now, and I think it'd look way too cramped if it was. We already link to all event pages on each specific country page, or in the notes of some other countries, so I just don't know what it's for. I guess linking to Category:Events would do the trick as well, and look less cluttered.

ps. Curious about what to do with countries that only have 1 event, and don't have a specific page for them. Make 1 article just for them? I'm referencing Funj, and a few other red links at the bottom of the page. TheWinner (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2015 (CET)

You probably have a point about the event links. Feel free to make that change.
I'm not entirely sure about what should be done about those countries either. Ideas are welcome. ~ Meneth (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2015 (CET)

I'll just link to the Category:Events, I think.
I've two ideas for the second point, unsure which ones to choose. One idea is to simply make a country page for each country, to keep things simple. Another is to create a separate page for these one off events and list them there. Both aren't exactly ideal, though. I'd probably go for the second idea, as it'd make things less cluttered- call it something like "One-off events" or something.TheWinner (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2015 (CET)
I am opposed to this decision, it makes is harder for people to get around the wiki. The flags in particular make the country section a much better idea. I think it would be wisest to bring it back. Dauth (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2015 (CEST)

Seven cities events[edit]

I think the entire set of events in the sevencities.txt file is missing. Can someone confirm and if so do we have any automatic tools to get the basics onto the wiki quickly? Dauth (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2015 (CEST)

Added as red link. We have to add it. Stigni (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2015 (CEST)
Cheers, making sure I'm not going insane. Dauth (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2015 (CEST)

Links to pages of events/missions[edit]

We're missing easy links to pages like Catholic events as well as country events. This makes the wiki much harder to use and should be corrected. Any objections? Dauth (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2015 (CEST)

Would be fine I think. At 4 columns, there'd only be about 20-25 countries per column, which isn't unreasonable. ~ Meneth (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2015 (CEST)
I suggest using also the flag: Flag of England English events. Stigni (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2015 (CEST)
For country spezific events take the removed version of 04:41, 28 February 2015 ( as base. – Lillebror (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2015 (CEST)
I don't understand from these comments how to link to events on a countries event page (for example in Portugal-Portuguese Events). As of now, the full code of the event is placed there, which is probably not ideal. It is the same for most other pages in this wiki. Can you explain the intended use again? --Lateralus (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2015 (CEST)
That's because for certain countries such as Portugal there are too many events for the country page, otherwise it becomes excessively long. Hence the dedicated page for their events. The purpose of this conversation was that several event files were not listed in the events page. My philosophy for a wiki is that a user with just a mouse should be able to get anywhere. From front page to events from events to specific list to the event itself. Previous to this conversation string that was a much more erratic route. Some events were linked here while others weren't and the objective is to make the wiki easy to use. Dauth (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2015 (CEST)
Ok, thanks. I understand that Tier 1 countries, like Portugal need their separate events/decision/mission pages. My question was just the following: If I want to insert a certain element (let's say the mission Portuguese_missions#Conquer_Tangiers on the country page: there is no template for this - right now, I just copy the whole source code of the mission from the Portuguese_missions page to the country page, which makes it hard to maintain if anything about that mission changes. The question was merely if this is the correct MO or should there be some kind of template/insert/script ... I hope I could clarify my question :D --Lateralus (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2015 (CEST)
Don't copy the source, instead link to it. We don't want duplication. Dauth (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2015 (CEST)
Sorry, one last time: I understand this intent, and I would like to follow it but how do I do that if I want the infobox for the decision to be displayed on the country's page, not merely link to it in the text in order to make this section more colorful and not make the reader click to another link. For example, see Portugal#Formation_of_Spain, how do I get the infobox without copypastaing it from the Spain page ... \verbatim{{{decision ..}}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lateralus (Talk) 15:44, 14 July 2015‎ (CEST)

(Unindent) I understand what you're after. I think if we get Meneth to install an extension that allows the transclusion of sections then we can do what you want without copying the code. I'm going to go play with transclusions and see if I can get anything to behave but I doubt we have the ability yet. Dauth (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2015 (CEST)

We can currently only transclude full pages. Thus if the formation decision is moved to its own page we can transclude it directly onto the Spain/Portugal/Aragon pages. Or we can wait to see if someone has a better plan. {{:Spain}} is the code to transclude the Spain page. If we had a Spanish Formation page we could transclude that with {{:Spanish_formation}} Dauth (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2015 (CEST)
Meneth has installed the extension so we should have success with {{#lsth:Spain|Formation}} for the section under discussion. Hope this makes it easier for you to do what you want to. Dauth (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2015 (CEST)

Full list[edit]

I know it was useful in the EU3 wiki, are we making a mistake in not having a single list of all events? Dauth (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2015 (CEST)

We've got one actually, at event IDs. Needs to be linked in this article though. ~ Meneth (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2015 (CEST)

Removed events list[edit]

We had this on the EU3 wiki, I think it might be worthwhile for the EU4 one so people can find out what various older AARs/guides were on about. Do we have an elegant way of achieving this? Dauth (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2015 (CEST)

Can't think of any sensible way to handle it (other than manually based on diffs), no. ~ Meneth (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2015 (CEST)


is there info anywhere about what happens if you'll just wait for N amount of time without choosing anything in an event? Gendalf (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2015 (CEST)

Default in EU3 was to take the top option. I don't know if that has changed in EU4. Dauth (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2015 (CEST)
It still is. After 6 months, the top option gets picked. -VNobility (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2015 (CEST)

Mean time to happen[edit]

Please decide, which is probability and which is Cumulative distribution in Mean time to happen section:

The engine checks whether an event occurs every EVENT_PROCESS_OFFSET days, set to 20 at default. The chance per check is

This was supposed to be a Cumulative distribution I think. In the link to forum, there is information about this being "Exponential distribution", with a constant probability of per one day check. So this math is simply wrong, since it mess probability of single check, with probability of single success in given time. Also, there is no information in the given link about 20 days default offset, where is this info from? What is a probability in single offset check? ? Or ? Puchacz (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2015 (CEST)

This looks like the complex level of things I avoided on the EU3 wiki let alone this one. I think you're better off contacting a dev for an answer, Meneth is usually good at finding out if the information is out for us to use. Maybe modders know more? Dauth (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2015 (CEST)
The 'EVENT_PROCESS_OFFSET' is set by /Europa Universalis IV/common/defines.lua to 20:
EVENT_PROCESS_OFFSET = 20, -- Events are checked every X day per character or province (1 is ideal, but CPU heavy)
Thus you have to set 'noOfDays' to EVENT_PROCESS_OFFSET = 20 in the post of Johan for EU4. – Lillebror (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2015 (CEST)
Ok. Thank you. I accidentally took user post for developer post regarding probability. Puchacz (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2015 (CEST)

New categories[edit]

How about we add new subcategories for events? My propositions are Religion related events, Government related events, Country specific events. Very important – last category would include all country articles with included events (when there are less then 5). Other subcategories may follow. Or maybe names should be different? Puchacz (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2015 (CEST)

I've removed the current links while we discuss them as we may not use the names you've listed. I think I'd rather get the events page sorted out first. Once we have suitable groupings in the main page (as opposed to the horrendous unsorted list) then we may decide to subcategory the events. Dauth (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2015 (CEST)
I think that reversed order of actions could be easier. First group obvious events, then see what would remain. Now this list is rather strange. Some events are grouped by the theme, other by the mechanism of triggering. Anyway, have you any other grouping suggestion? Puchacz (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2015 (CEST)
I would prefer the entire set to be grouped by theme since that is how most users will search for them. If we then subgroup or indicate on this page that the mechanism for these events is different then that's fine too. Dauth (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2015 (CEST)
The pulse categories are small enough that I think we could justify duplicating their listings to category-based listings.
The events within pulses are all mutually exclusive for a single pulse, so they do need to stay together somewhere. Hence duplication probably being the best solution there.
So everything grouped by theme, but still keeping the grouping by pulse too. ~ Meneth (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2015 (CEST)

Merging suggestions, next attempt.[edit]

I suggest merging the following event list:

  1. Theocracies events with Devotion events – the second use flags set in the first of them and they are both limited to theocracies, can be separated by sections in the article.
  2. Star and Crescent events with Muslim piety events – both for Muslim nations, can be separated in one list wtih the use of sections.
  3. Papal events, The Papacy events and Papal State events – events for a very specific country, perhaps smoe more closed look into them is required, but I'm certain that 3 separate event lists are not needed.
  4. Religious events, Reformation events, Protestant events, The Oracle of Pachacamac, The Temple City of Cholula and perhaps Religious reform events into Religious events, as the remaining events are single event in a separate article, which is a bad thing.
  5. Alternative: Reformation events, Protestant events, The Oracle of Pachacamac, The Temple City of Cholula and Religious reform events into religion events list of the concerned religion. Similar is Sikh events page.

Already made some proposition about that single events, bu all I got is the information about a need of discussion, without any discussion itself. Puchacz (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2015 (CEST)

I support doing 1, 2 and 3 right away. I'm not keen on either option for 4 or 5 with the new world religions. I'd say merge Reformation events and Protestant events into something new. Possibly Religious reform events but I'm not convinced yet. Dauth (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2015 (CEST)
I support 1 through 3. Should probably be sections within a single page to still maintain some distinction.
Not sure about 4/5. ~ Meneth (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2015 (CEST)
Thank you for responses, will go through 1-3 in the following week. But actually 4/5 is my main concern. Religious events is omst about provinces changing religion, but there are as well events connected with Counter-Reformation. Since the list is not limited to Old world religions, I think it can take any garbage we have. Of course we could split that list instead (as they don't fit together) and have even more events articles, but I believe we have to many right now. The New world religion centres are right now in the events lists of countries, that do not even own related provinces! Puchacz (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2015 (CEST)
After checking Buddhist events, I am even more inclined to moving each of separate events into they respectful religion (so the 5th alternative). For example Conversion to Theravada from Pagan (buddhism_events.39) event is almost the same as The Oracle of Pachacamac and The Temple City of Cholula events. Regards. Puchacz (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2015 (CEST)
My concern with no longer being listed by the file is that updating becomes more of an issue. If its just merging files onto one page then that's more acceptable. Dauth (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2015 (CEST)
I agree. However updating is an issue even right now, especially if a list is templated at half. This is why I put the path template in every section of files, and state, like in Aztec events, where the removed events are. Puchacz (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2015 (CEST)
When we hit 1.14 I'll reparse all events and add any missing ones. If you want to PM me on the forums with an email I can send you the 1.13 events that have been prased. Dauth (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2015 (CEST)

Event lists[edit]

Should events in a single list be grouped by theme, or should they be in the order of the original file(s)? I used the first approach, but now I see the problem it generates, when they are changed and need updating. For example Burgundian events where marked as actual, despite lacking half of the events. So, should events be easier to read, or easier to edit in the future? I marked many events as actual in 1.13, but did it only based of comparison between 1.11 and 1.13 files. I did not verify if they were really actual for 1.11 before. Do you use any mechanism for verifying new events? I saw quite a few are absent, and thought that all missing are generated by a script. Puchacz (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2015 (CEST)

We use Meneth's parser to create the files, anything I made for 1.12 is correct and complete for 1.12. I did not overwrite pages which had already been templated because its such an annoying job to redo. If there are Burgundian events which are missing I'll see if the parsed files have any new content. Dauth (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2015 (CEST)
I suspect your missing Burgundian events are in Dutch_revolt_events which is a dedicated event chain and page. Dauth (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2015 (CEST)
OK. Thanks, I didn't know they were moved. Puchacz (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2015 (CEST)