1.57 BUG LIST - Some remaining questions here

[GeneralSnoopy]

Some remaining questions here
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...2&postcount=75

-1648: What about shipyard in Jakarta, historical?

It is clear the Dutch East India Company (Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie) built a shipyard in this province, specifically on the island of Onrust. There are many references to this shipyard.

The real question is whether it constitutes a SHIPYARD in game terms.

All references I have seen about this shipyard indicate it was used for repair and maintenance purposes for ships traveling on the very long voyage from Europe to Indonesia. It was not used to build ships – that was done in the Netherlands.

In game terms SHIPYARDs increase naval support, but I believe this feature is secondary to the primary purpose of building ships.

Since the primary purpose of the Jakarta (Batavia) shipyard was not to build ships, then I believe in game terms the 1648 scenario should not have a SHIPYARD in Jakarta.

The naval support concept implied by the real life Jakarta shipyard is adequately covered by that provided by in-game ports.

 

[Toio]

Some remaining questions here
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...2&postcount=75



It is clear the Dutch East India Company (Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie) built a shipyard in this province, specifically on the island of Onrust. There are many references to this shipyard.

The real question is whether it constitutes a SHIPYARD in game terms.

All references I have seen about this shipyard indicate it was used for repair and maintenance purposes for ships traveling on the very long voyage from Europe to Indonesia. It was not used to build ships – that was done in the Netherlands.

In game terms SHIPYARDs increase naval support, but I believe this feature is secondary to the primary purpose of building ships.

Since the primary purpose of the Jakarta (Batavia) shipyard was not to build ships, then I believe in game terms the 1648 scenario should not have a SHIPYARD in Jakarta.

The naval support concept implied by the real life Jakarta shipyard is adequately covered by that provided by in-game ports.

agree

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Ok, shipyard removed in 1648 scenario then.

 

[GeneralSnoopy]

Bugs in 1.42

1.57 BUG LIST – Bugs in 1.42:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...0&postcount=68

According to TIM_296606, luxury manufactory is missing in Samarkand (1592) in 1520 scenario. or is it wad?

Just a consistency issue for 1520 scenario. Ulugh Beg’s observatory was not destroyed, but should Uzbeks deserve a luxury manufactory at Samarkand in 1520?

In the 1420s and 1430s Samarkand was the astronomical capital of the world.
http://vlib.iue.it/carrie/texts/carrie_books/paksoy-2/cam6.html

The fate of Samarkand is similar in many ways to that of Timbuktu. Initially, a shining light of muslim scholarship and science, then serious decline. The science preeminence of Samarkand arose thru the efforts of Ulugh Beg (TIM_296606). It started its decline after Ulugh Beg died in 1449. However, Samarkand’s madrassa (center for higher learning) and observatory were still important for many years after Ulugh Beg’s death. The end of Samarkand eminence could be dated to the arrival of the Shaibani in Samarkand in 1506. This event is nicely represented in event TIM_296772.

- No Luxury Manufactory in Samarkand (1592) in the 1520 scenario is wad.
- TIM_296772. Should add a command in action_A to remove the luxury manufactory in Samarkand.

command = { type = losemanufactory which = 1592 }

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Thanks, proposed change included in next beta.

 

[GeneralSnoopy]

Some remaining questions here
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...2&postcount=75

- Serbia as leader of alliance with Hungary – see here but why only in EU2 1.09?

See here:

alliance = { 
        id = { type = 9423 id = 33 } 
        type = militaryalliance 
        expirydate = { year = 1440 month = january day = 1 } 
        participant = { HUN SER }
    }

I think Hungary second alliance should change for EU2 1.09
Serbia easily give up and left war betwen Otto alliance with Hungary if Otto attacking SER. That make Otto invade HUN to early. Maybe should replace with these

alliance = { 
        id = { type = 9423 id = 33 } 
        type = militaryalliance 
        expirydate = { year = 1440 month = january day = 1 } 
        participant = { SER HUN }
    }

To evaluate which setup is best, I ran 20 hands-off games with no random events using 1.58 beta 10.

Hungary leads alliance: participant = { HUN SER}

(1)  Hungary annexes Serbia in 1435
(2)  Hungary annexes Serbia in 1436
(3)  Serbia loses Kosovo to Ottomans in 1443
     Hungary annexes Serbia in 1450
(4)  Serbia loses Kosovo to Ottomans in 1433
     Serbia falls to Ottomans in 1440
(5)  Serbia loses Kosovo to Ottomans in 1421
     Serbia falls to Ottomans in 1433
(6)  Serbia loses Kosovo to Ottomans in 1440
     Serbia falls to Ottomans in 1459 
(7)  Serbia loses Kosovo to Ottomans in 1434
     Serbia falls to Bosnia (allied with Hungary) in 1437
(8)  Serbia loses Kosovo to Ottomans in 1440
     Serbia falls to Bosnia (allied with Hungary) in 1448
(9)  Serbia loses Kosovo to Ottomans in 1440
     Serbia gains Bosnia in 1445
     Serbia loses Bosnia to Ottomans in 1454
     Serbia still alive in 1465
(10) Ottomans and Hungary attack and occupy Serbia in 1439-1444
     Hungary makes war on Ottomans in 1444-1446; Serbia vassal of Hungary.
     Serbia recovers Kosovo in 1455
     Serbia loses Kosovo to Ottomans in 1456
     Serbia still alive in 1465

Serbia leads alliance: participant = { SER HUN }

(1)  Hungary annexes Serbia in 1436
(2)  Hungary annexes Serbia in 1436
(3)  Serbia DoW Bosnia in 1431
     Hungary comes to the aid of Bosnia
     Serbia loses Kosovo to Bosnia in 1432
     Serbia falls to Ottomans in 1440 
(4)  Serbia DoW Bosnia (joined by Hungary) in 1427
     Ottomans come to the aid of Bosnia
     Serbia loses Kosovo to Ottomans in 1430
     Serbia falls to Ottomans in 1440
(5)  Serbia loses Kosovo to Ottomans in 1429
     Serbia falls to Ottomans in 1440
(6)  Serbia loses Kosovo to Ottomans in 1431
     Serbia falls to Ottomans in 1438
(7)  Serbia loses Kosovo to Ottomans in 1432
     Serbia falls to Ottomans in 1437
(8)  Serbia loses Kosovo to Ottomans in 1440
     Serbia falls to Ottomans in 1446
(9)  Serbia loses Kosovo to Ottomans in 1441
     Serbia still alive in 1465
(10) Serbia loses Kosovo to Ottomans in 1440
     Serbia still alive in 1465

SUMMARY:
The only significant difference I see is that SERBIA DoWs BOSNIA 20% of the time when she is the leader of the alliance - Results are bad for Serbia and bad for History. Personally, I prefer if the larger more important country is the leader of the alliance. I vote we retain the existing setup where HUNGARY is the leader of the alliance.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Ok, case closed then.

 

[GeneralSnoopy]

1.57 Bug List – Some remaining questions here
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...2&postcount=75

-Problem with Netherlands in 1648 scenario - see here

See here:

In the 1648 scenario, Holland has not yet discovered many provinces where she has colonies (the northern coast of south America, the US east coast, Indonesia). Additionally, Holland does not have Frisian culture.

Frisia culture is no longer in the game. Frisia province has Dutch culture.

I don’t see the problem with the Netherlands setup. All the provinces that the Netherlands will have colonies or trading posts have either been discovered or colonized. In North America, South America, and Indonesia/Asia I don’t see the issue with the Netherlands needing an explorer to discover further provinces.

 

[GeneralSnoopy]

Bugs in 1.42

Bugs in 1.42:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...0&postcount=68

* According to RussiaInMongolia events, some provinces should be populated and not TP in Siberian corridor in 1648 scenario.

Or, because of the EU2 limit of 1000 inhabitants, can we consider 1648 setup is right?

Between the 1419/1520 and 1648 scenarios, the 1648 scenario looks to be the most accurate setup for Mongolia. Of the Mongolian provinces the 1648 scenario only has four provinces with cities. These are Krasnoyarsk [591], Irkutsk [600], Ulan Ude [603], and Mogotcha [609]. Mogotcha probably represents the city of Kyakhta. All of these are historic cities. The setup designer took some liberties with the founding dates, because otherwise there would be almost no cities at all in Mongolia. The inhabitants are well represented as NATIVES (the Mongolians) and the trading posts and cities reflect very well the very limited administrative/military infrastructure that was setup to extract the fur tax. Fur being the principal reason why the Russians are here in the first place.

-Krasnoyarsk: 1628. Founded as a Russian border fort.
-Irkutsk: 1652. Grew out of the winter quarters established by Yakov Pokhabov for gold trading and for the collection of the fur tax from the Buryats.
-Ulan Ude: 1666. Founded by the Russian Cossacks as fortress Udinskoye.
-Mogotcha (Kyakhta): 1728. Transit city that grew up to support the Siberian Tea Road.

The Mongolian 1419/1520 setup almost certainly overpowers the Mongolians. The Mongolians have too much income which then gets spent on fortresses. The RussiansInMongolia event sequence deals with the fortress problem by destroying them. A better way of dealing with the problem would be to eliminate the extra cash by eliminating the ahistorical cities, but that solution leads to other problems.

While Touva [596] is the capital of Mongolia and in the 1419/1520 scenario is a city, was it in real life a city? Or, was it the general geographic location of the ruling leadership?

SUMMARY:
(1) 1648 Russian setup in Mongolia is basically correct.
(2) 1419/1520 Mongolia setup is not correct.
(3) Add to the AGCEEP ToDoList: The 1419/1520 Mongolia setup is not consistent with the basically correct 1648 Russian setup in Mongolia. Any setup changes should not compromise the Russians In Mongolia event sequence.

 

[Tobit]

looking over the event file for bavaria I think I see a problem. For Event 125036 it says triggered by choice 3626_A. I think what it means to say is 3616_A because I see no other reference to 3626_A in the file.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Thanks, this is indeed a typo with no influence in-game but better fix it.

 

[GeneralSnoopy]

1.57 Bug List – some remaining questions here

Some remaining questions here:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...2&postcount=75

-too long descriptions (Bordic posted them here with part in yellow) - see here

see here

These are the texts to be shortened (the yellow strings aren't displayed on the screen):

EVENTHIST179700;In the end of the 15th century the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation was far from being an effective state. While strong national Kingdoms had formed in France, England, Spain and almost all other European nations, it had remained a medieval anachronism, a body composed of independent princes, cities, bishoprics and republics unable to act as one. Feuds had become a plague everywhere, despite several attempts to prevent them by issuing public peaces for certain territories or certain times. The need for a reform was obvious, and acknowledged by a strong movement for imperial reform that emerged in the late 1480s. However, such a reform was hindered by conflicting ideas on what state should be the outcome of the reform. One group, consisting of the Emperor and his allies among the imperial cities and the weaker princes of the realm, supported reforms that would enable the Emperor to exploit Germany's considerable resources more effectively than in the past. In order to accomplish that, they demanded major innovations such as a regular system of imperial taxation and a regular administration of Germany in absentia by an imperial governing council that was to be kept under the Emperor's control. What they wanted was a stronger authority of the Emperor and an effective national kingdom. This was opposed by those who would lose ground by such a reform, the powerful princes, led by the German Archchancellor, Archbishop-Elector Berthold von Henneberg of Mainz. The faction of the princes wanted a more clearly federal structure that would give their autonomy a legal base and increase their rights to participate in ruling the Empire. The Emperor eventually had to seek a compromise that was strongly in favour of the princes in order to get the urgently needed reforms to stop private wars done. Thus several reforms, including the Perpetual Peace which outlawed feuding in the whole Empire forever, the establishment of the Imperial Chamber Court, a tribunal financed and factually controlled by the princes that was to arbitrate conflict between members of the Empire, the creation of Imperial Circles, regional districts that had the tasks to enforce Imperial Chamber Court decisions, to control minting and to assemble and maintain contingents for the Imperial Army , and the introduction of the Common Penny, a direct, universal property and poll tax that was supposed to finance the defence of the Emperor and the Chamber Court, were passed by an Imperial Diet at Worms in 1495. Our excellent diplomatic position within the Empire, especially the certain support of a great majority within the council of electors, would allow us to push more extensive reforms that could ensure a more effective administration and could turn Germany into a powerful national kingdom. This would surely meet resistance within the Empire and among the neighbouring countries that would feel threatened by such a state.;;;;;;;;;;8521

To shorten the text remove the text in RED.

EVENTHIST179700;In the end of the 15th century the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation was far from being an effective state. While strong national Kingdoms had formed in France, England, Spain and almost all other European nations, it had remained a medieval anachronism, a body composed of independent princes, cities, bishoprics and republics unable to act as one. Feuds had become a plague everywhere, despite several attempts to prevent them by issuing public peaces for certain territories or certain times. The need for a reform was obvious, and acknowledged by a strong movement for imperial reform that emerged in the late 1480s. However, such a reform was hindered by conflicting ideas on what state should be the outcome of the reform. One group, consisting of the Emperor and his allies among the imperial cities and the weaker princes of the realm, supported reforms that would enable the Emperor to exploit Germany's considerable resources more effectively than in the past. In order to accomplish that, they demanded major innovations such as a regular system of imperial taxation and a regular administration of Germany in absentia by an imperial governing council that was to be kept under the Emperor's control. What they wanted was a stronger authority of the Emperor and an effective national kingdom. This was opposed by those who would lose ground by such a reform, the powerful princes, led by the German Archchancellor, Archbishop-Elector Berthold von Henneberg of Mainz. The faction of the princes wanted a more clearly federal structure that would give their autonomy a legal base and increase their rights to participate in ruling the Empire. The Emperor eventually had to seek a compromise that was strongly in favour of the princes in order to get the urgently needed reforms to stop private wars done. Thus several reforms, including the Perpetual Peace which outlawed feuding in the whole Empire forever, the establishment of the Imperial Chamber Court, a tribunal financed and factually controlled by the princes that was to arbitrate conflict between members of the Empire, the creation of Imperial Circles, regional districts that had the tasks to enforce Imperial Chamber Court decisions, to control minting and to assemble and maintain contingents for the Imperial Army , and the introduction of the Common Penny, a direct, universal property and poll tax that was supposed to finance the defence of the Emperor and the Chamber Court, were passed by an Imperial Diet at Worms in 1495. Our excellent diplomatic position within the Empire, especially the certain support of a great majority within the council of electors, would allow us to push more extensive reforms that could ensure a more effective administration and could turn Germany into a powerful national kingdom. This would surely meet resistance within the Empire and among the neighbouring countries that would feel threatened by such a state.;;;;;;;;;;8521

FINAL VERSION

EVENTHIST179700;In the end of the 15th century the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation was far from being an effective state. While strong national Kingdoms had formed in France, England, Spain and almost all other European nations, it had remained a medieval anachronism, a body composed of independent princes, cities, bishoprics and republics unable to act as one. The need for a reform was obvious, and acknowledged by a strong movement for imperial reform that emerged in the late 1480s. However, such a reform was hindered by conflicting ideas on what state should be the outcome of the reform. One group, consisting of the Emperor and his allies among the imperial cities and the weaker princes of the realm, supported reforms that would enable the Emperor to exploit Germany's considerable resources more effectively than in the past. What they wanted was a stronger authority of the Emperor and an effective national kingdom. This was opposed by those who would lose ground by such a reform, the powerful princes, led by the German Archchancellor, Archbishop-Elector Berthold von Henneberg of Mainz. The faction of the princes wanted a more clearly federal structure that would give their autonomy a legal base and increase their rights to participate in ruling the Empire. The Emperor eventually had to seek a compromise that was strongly in favour of the princes in order to get the urgently needed reforms done. Thus several reforms, including the Perpetual Peace which outlawed feuding in the whole Empire forever, the establishment of the Imperial Chamber Court, a tribunal financed and factually controlled by the princes that was to arbitrate conflict between members of the Empire, the creation of Imperial Circles, regional districts that had the tasks to enforce Imperial Chamber Court decisions, to control minting and to assemble and maintain contingents for the Imperial Army , and the introduction of the Common Penny, a direct, universal property and poll tax that was supposed to finance the defence of the Emperor and the Chamber Court, were passed by an Imperial Diet at Worms in 1495. Our excellent diplomatic position within the Empire, especially the certain support of a great majority within the council of electors, would allow us to push more extensive reforms that could ensure a more effective administration and could turn Germany into a powerful national kingdom. This would surely meet resistance within the Empire and among the neighbouring countries that would feel threatened by such a state.;;;;;;;;;;8521