Laurent... Just some friendly advice: Lest you wish to appear rude and uncultured, you should always use a polite tone in your posts; especially when you are replying to a person whose opinions you do not share.
The IGC is attempting to obtain historicityby otaining a better 1492 map and enhanced monarchs, leaders files. by the contrary, no modifications are done to 2 of the most flawed EU mechanisms, ie the tech research and the tax proportion in kingdom incomes.
Unless I am totally mistaken, this is more or less exactly what I wrote in my post. I reiterate: the IGC leaves the heavier game balancing to Paradox. We know that Paradox is aware of the research rate problem and that they will hopefully fix it in future official patches. Changing tax proportion is a trivial hack and really a matter of personal taste.
These 2 combined mechanisms prodduces in IGC like in the normal GC a lot of unbelievable evolutions, mostly by giving minors an advantage in tech and for human player a greater revenues income than in reality.
Perhaps... The research rate and ratio concerning the number of owned provinces is indeed flawed; enough so that Paradox must fix it. However, I am not as concerned with what you call "a lot of unbelievable evolutions" resulting from this. History is not fated to play out the way it does. Pretty much anything can happen in 300 years. However, the
AI could use some tweaking to choose provinces closer to home in peace treaties. This is something only Paradox can fix though.
Real EU addresses both these problems, by some file tweakings: not only harder the game is for human player, but the realism is enhanced: no nations, major or minor, is now lagging in tech race, colonization by AI minors will be limited, Poland will not regularly colonize Africa. Minors can achieve great results, but it will only be one or 2 occurences by game and no more the dozens any great campaign produces.
I don't think I've
ever seen a Polish colony in Africa and I can swallow the minor nation successes during the 300 years of a Grand Campaign. In 1492 no one could have imagined the stupendous success stories of such pathetic minor powers as England, Russia and Brandenburg, let alone the rise and fall of Sweden or the appearance of an economic Dutch super power. Sure, they had potential, but so did Denmark, Saxony, Hungary, Venice, Burgundy (a little earlier), Bavaria, Bohemia, the southern Khanates and many others that "lost the race".
EU has a problem in that it penalizes the research rate for nations with many provinces too much, but IMO this is no reason to destroy the playability of so called "minor" nations by crippling their monarchs. Hence, this will never be a feature of the IGC.
To be fair, real EU is based on IGC 1.07 and would not have been possible without.
It is good that you remember that. Without conceit, I think we (the IGC team) deserve to be treated with a measure of respect by those who make use of our labor.
without being perfect, Real EU is an attempt to get prolounged likely results: Turkey can annex Papal States but it will be less current to see Turkey annexing holstein
I very much doubt that Real EU can fix the problem with AI priorities in peace negotiations. Trying to correct this by hacking the available data files is like putting out a fire by tearing down the house.
Of course, these are all my personal opinions and observations. I am not saying that Real EU does not have merit, or that Laurent is "Totally Wrong
", what I am saying is that the IGC is based on a completely different philosophy.
