Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

A second aberration scenario?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
unmerged(10894)

unmerged(10894)

Rusty, Old EU2MPer
Sep 4, 2002
3.001
0
I've been thinking, Aberration is a great mod, but it only has one scenario with it. The base of it is great, but it could do with a variety, especially in time periods for those who don't want 400 years of aberration.

To me, it would seem pretty easy just to add a 1492 scenario to the mod. Leaders, monarchs etc have all been done, so why not take advantage of it. 1492 is still a good time with explorers etc. A few changes could be done to the scenario to diverge it a bit from the GC, while still keeping the flavour of Aberration. I, however, have no clue about Aberrated events so best not to speculate on those things from my end.

It could be a good excuse to iron out a few creases in the GC, but mainly to have a little facelift.

What do you guys reckon?
 
Well, the main cause for not having later scenarios has been to not give players any "This is how it should go" thoughts.
 
how intresting, yeah I like it :)
 
Then just aberrate from how events would take you a little. Bavaria finally gives into it's inheritance system and the upper and lower palatinate are formed. Eire/Brittany conspired with the Earls of northern England against Scotland and the Hansa and results in a host of nations having at each other and their former masters, making the British isles quite divided. The Teutonic Order have a disasterous set of aggressive wars against Finland and the russian principalities which made the two people groups reconcile their differences and band forces against the German knights successfully.

It doesn't have to go textbook style, and enough can be done to it to make it unemulatible in the GC, while still keeping the main nations around (albeit in different levels of power). *shrugs*
 
The only issue here I think is the determinism it might give to the colonial scene. Eire should already have begun colonising and choosing where to place these colonies will likely determine where people think that colonies "should" go. Changing European borders will have little or no effect since the very essence of playing EU2 is to change history, and MP games won't usually allow the total defeat of an important nation.

So, to summarize, my question is: If another scenario is created, how will the question of deterministic colonialism be dealt with?
 
Granda Carribean and Mexico?or Brazil? Eire is in New England,Brittany is in what I would precieve as the french colonize , southern America that is?pehraps Africa should be colonized by the Italians :p
 
CaptainBOB said:
You see, that is what Aberration tried to avoid, pre-specified colonization areas....we should, as much as possible, avoid pre-determining the areas each power should colonize.
Click to expand...

Well it IS and Alternative history, but the same pattern of empires should still be there, dont you think?Anyway Im just a silly arab :p
 
As I recall (I wasn't part of it but I was paying attention), one of the original goals of Aberration was to avoid determinism in the colonial scene. The idea was to make it so that players wouldn't feel pressured to colonize one area. For example, Portugal could go wherever it wants but has anyone ever seen them go anywhere besides Brazil early on, even in MP?

I personally feel that we should keep this philosophy, as especially in MP I find the colonial scene quite boring, since people will tend to make treaties according to historical colonizing areas. Aberration gets rid of this because there aren't any historical colonizing areas.
 
Alright then. In 1492, Eire is the only nation to have explored anything, so why not take them out of the running or something. AFAIK, if that was done, no one would have any objections to this point?
 
Last edited:
Alternatively, we could just give Eire some strategically placed islands. Places any player would want for fleet naval bases. Also, the paths to them directly from Eire. I propose, if we do a 1492 scenario, that Eire have colonies on the following: Canary Islands, the Azores, Table, Bermuda (maybe just a TP), one of the south Atlantic islands, and MAYBE one of the Indian Ocean islands...these are all feasible to discover and at least start colonizing by 1492, and are reasonable staging bases. This lets Eire jump off into important and valuable areas without giving them truly defined areas to colonize, since with these areas they could potentially go anywhere.
 
we should also have a war between the Caliphate and the Byzantines :p
 
Hehe I wonder who the winner would be in the world of Caliph?

Anyways, that is all to be determined, is there even enough interest to code up this scenario? I don't suppose it would be too hard given that the events, monarchs, and leaders are already there, but the events might not apply if we mess things up too much. Just something to consider (I'm just so positive! :p ;) )
 
Depends how much you wanted to do with it I suppose. It could be a week job or a few months really.
 
CaptainBOB said:
Alternatively, we could just give Eire some strategically placed islands. Places any player would want for fleet naval bases. Also, the paths to them directly from Eire. I propose, if we do a 1492 scenario, that Eire have colonies on the following: Canary Islands, the Azores, Table, Bermuda (maybe just a TP), one of the south Atlantic islands, and MAYBE one of the Indian Ocean islands...these are all feasible to discover and at least start colonizing by 1492, and are reasonable staging bases. This lets Eire jump off into important and valuable areas without giving them truly defined areas to colonize, since with these areas they could potentially go anywhere.
Click to expand...

That seems a good idea to me. IMHO it would make colonising even more flexible in such a way if it were done like this. As it is, Eire will usually go for North America (and carve itself a nice empire since it has quite a time advantage over the other colonisors). However in such a way it could also possibly go into Asia more easily than would've otherwise been possible.
 
If we're going to go the whole "no predetirmined colonisation road", you may as well not set any preferred areas except every continent for AI just so it isn't predetermined.
 
tombom said:
If we're going to go the whole "no predetirmined colonisation road", you may as well not set any preferred areas except every continent for AI just so it isn't predetermined.
Click to expand...
Or rather, you could set all, but of course, I'm not sure if it makes any difference.

IMO, the best way to make a post-1419 scenario is to let the AI play while you're off-hands. Save in 1492 or so, and compare a couple of savegames and take the average as a new 1492 scenario (Burgundy conquered Flanders in 16 out 20 games in 1492, so we should give them Flanders).
Of course, this is a lot more work than anything else, so it's more like an idea than a suggestion.
 
Personally, now that we're getting into the ROTW stuff, I would like to see the "original" Europe-only aberration and the "new" worldwide version kept as two seperate scenarios, so that those who *want* to play an unaberrated China in an aberrated world (for example) can.
 
Another problem with the current abberation scenario is that it's not that practical for MP play. The amount of nations you need for balance is more than even normal-large sized games. It could be interesting to tweak another scenario if only so that it'd be better in a game with say only 10 players. Aberration has done really well there, but western europe hurts a lot more by the lack of players as Wed Abe game is finding out.

I was thinking, Brittany and Scotland in Britian/France Britian/Scandinavia. Hansa in Northern Germany and Scandinavia and Britian maybe. Swabia in Southern Germany and Northern Italy. Sicily in North Africa and South Italy (and mediterrean). A French/Iberian nation in the remnants of the Iberian kingdoms and French alliance that would extend into southern France. Finland (with Scandinavian and Baltic) in Northern Scandinavia, the Baltic and perhaps into Russia. Ukraine as normal and Byzantium too.

That's 9, which is a great number for MP. The upsides of what I just said about those nations in particular is that each area (britian, france, germany, italy, russia, scandinavia, caucasus etc) would have competing interests. The only major area I see not having that would be the Iberian peninsula, but even then Sicily could take some of North Africa and there'd be Brittany and Swabia in France. If more nations were needed, Eire could be played, or Hungary, but imho neither of these nations should really be necessary for game balance as they are now.

It'd be easy to do from what I've seen. Change the province ownerships of a few provinces, and the power levels of different nations, and especially in Finland's case, give different cultures to allow for increased competition. Probably the most different thing would be southern France, as a new viable nation would have to be made(or could have it that Savoy was pushed southwest by maurauding Swabian armies and then overwhelmed some fo the princes and set up camp there, which would be much easier to edit).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back