Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Additions/Changes for Uzbeks & Persia

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.
Show only dev responses
Speaking in historic terms then. Which would be more important to modeling history....a number of european revolting countries which usually only make very short cameo appearances in some games or other nations in the RoTW which would have a persistant existance in almost every game?

In my mind, if we answer this question it sets the course for further discussion about the direction should take. Also, Doomy could just say "It's too much work to do right now. Let's table this issue until latter." This to would be valid, IMO.

My own answer is if we could identify other nation(s) in the RoTW what would add a more historical feel to colonial expansion then this would go a long way to removing a bit of the Euro-centric focus of the game and it might make colonial expansion more of a challange.

In the end we all want the same thing...more TAGS!!!! :eek:

Just my 2cents,
:cool:
ErrantOne
 
Having a weak country somewhere out there does actually makes colonisation easier though for the Europeans ;) Imagine the Spanish having to build all those Aztec cities themselves ;)

Though a well implemented Asian nation could be good. Then again if a player wants too he can take some conquistador and some troops and conquer whole India before they even should have heard of the place ;)
 
Actually, Qazaqs were not that weak early on, and that what we're trying to achieve -- slow down the colonization. I'm pretty sure people here can come up with other nations worth implementing, however a big chunk of what Paradox tried to convince us was Siberia ;) (no offence meant) should have smth there, hence Qazaqs. I am also all 4 for removing the Iroquois and populating the NA with a huge number of very hostile Natives.
 
U can hardly put native Americans somewhere else though ;)

The thing I don't like with all those Siberian nations is the fact Russia HAS to go thru them to get anywhere, the option to go just around them isn't possible because of the permanant ti. Because of those new nations, well, Uzbeks only, I have yet to see Russia get to Siberia in a recent IGC game :D

And only Russian colonisation is slowed down, the other colonial nations don't really suffer as, if there are native countries in the first place, they can work around them.
 
Has anyone tested the MUS and ITA tags? I've added flags and shields to those tags and and it seems to work fine. However I've not tested them long enough to be sure. Does anyone know if there are any problems with them? I'm going to add the Khazaks to my scenario and I've allso got a monarch list.
 
They are in mine, I'm playing Uzbeks (with Qazaqs and no Granada). The year is 1592 and Russian conquistador is just starting to make it through to the Pacific. Putting Qazaq capital way south helps too, Russia really have to get 3-4 provinces before they are on their way. If not for me, Russia probably would have crushed their way through by now. Reworking the success rate for colonization is important too.
 
The succes rate is too low IMO :D Russia doesn't get to Siberia too often, if at all. And when around that time the Time of Troubles hits too I often see them disintegrate and them having to reconquer all those states on the way again. So they never get there :D The year is around 1600 and Russia still has the Golden Horde in front of it. IT managed to get halfway Sibir by 1590 :D

Now those nations there shouldn't disappear but Russia should be able to get thru somewhat easier IMO as it's getting weird looking at an empty Siberia every time, and I mean every time :D
 
I know that their main region is pti. I think there should have been less in pti in Asia. And the game map of the Transoxania/Turkestan region is not very realistic. At lest the Aral sea and the Amu and Syr Darya Rivers should have been included. Possibly Lake Balkashj (the Khazak main region if I'm not mistaken) too. Hopefully Paradox will fix this in a EU2.
 
That's just how some players do it. Never seen the AI do that (that is IF they get to Siberia at all :D) Human players can always keep doing those weird things if they like.
 
Actually all problems with Sibiria happends because of really bad map. I just cant belive they have draw so bad map. Even in Board game map was better.
In reality all this terra Incognita was colonized by Russia (except of Chukotka). Most of this territory was covered by TP but anyway. In game we have territories (especially in west side) which was effectively collonized only in late XVIII c.
In reality only Sibiria khanate was between Russia and full-scale colonization. Actually its begins so late because Sibiria was vassal most of time and Russia have much more problems on the west (with Poland and Crimea). And Kazan makes it difficalt because there was no good roads to Sibiria through nothern territories of Russia.

Its very bad idia to add any more nations in Khanates region. This will stops Sibirian colonization complitely. In all games I have played Russia only once manage to effectivly colonize Sibiria. All other games they stops in Sibiria Khanate. This just owfull.
Of cause players usually do not have problems with this. Actually if you add more states it will be much easier to take all this territories because countries will be weaker.
 
Ok, I have heard enough to convince me that Granada can be safely dropped. However, I am not entirely sure the tag should be used for the Kazaks. I must say that in my games, Russia still does tend to conquer Sibir eventually, so I have few worries about hindering the Bear more, but every reassignment of a tag should be carefully considered.

TRI is a moslem tag, so it should be used for a nation with moslem or exotic type units. The Kazaks are one clear alternative, but there are also some SE Asian states that might be added... So, Kazaks or Siam, Korea or what?

If we combine Catalunya and Aragon, that leaves us with another catholic (or orthodox if it exists from the start) nation. One logical use would be to assign the free tag to New Spain and reinstitute Sardinia again.

After that, all we have left is FPR, which I assume is protestant when it revolts, or converts when possible. It should be used for a nation in Europe; possibly Mecklenburg.

As for the Iriquois, it is true that they are always inactive, but there is not much else that the tag may be used for...
 
No more Granada, wayhey :D And another tag freed up :D

Wouldn't the French Protestant Huguenots actually be reformed ? :D I wouldn't know actually as I've never seen them turn up but I guess they would be, should be in fact. In that case, there aren't many reformed alternatives out there in Europe ... ;)
 
Last edited:
BiB,

Actually I saw it happened too many times for Ai Russia. They declare war on Sibir and one or two conquistadors sneak through and march on. And then the fun begins. I am going to rework those rates, while increasing the rate for inner provinces.

Doomie,

Isn't Siam already in as Ayutthaya?
I forgot to mention, that Uzbeks and Moghuls should definitely know where Turkey is.
 
While u are reworking those coastal rates (which should be quite higer than inland Siberia anyway :D) I will be keeping my fingers crossed for the Russians to ever get to Siberia :D And that is without any Kazachs in between :D
 
Yes, Siam is Auytthaya or course; I was thinking of Cambodia. :eek:

Hmm, now that I think about it, Cambodia is probably not such a good choice - it was a messed up country in this time frame. How about something in Burma? I believe there was some pretty powerful nation in the area... Taunga or some such. Even had the edge on the Siamese if I remember correctly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back