• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Toio said:
pity kaigons site is no more, with all his sprites and flags
Isn't it here?
 
Taylor said:
About the fortresses: Yes, I meant the fortresses in city view. There can be only one fortress sprite per level.

But actually the same applies to houses & churches. For example, two European cities of same size always have the same cathedral. Why not make it possible to have a choice between several cathedral sprites for the same population level? And support for more house sprites would be nice, too.
It could be good to not be limited to the eight hardcoded sets first. :)

After that, it is more a matter of talented artists for more sprites.


And yes, Kaigon's site is still alive.
 
YodaMaster said:
It could be good to not be limited to the eight hardcoded sets first. :)

After that, it is more a matter of talented artists for more sprites.


And yes, Kaigon's site is still alive.


PLEASE LINK KAIGONS SITE as the old one i used
(http://medlem.spray.se/kaigon/)

gives me a 404 error

I already use most of kaigons sprites anyway, but its good to keep the link

use CAL for MAM
TVE for HEL
BYZ for PAP :rolleyes:
 
Garbon said:
The death of a ruler isn't really the same as the capture of a capital. Many rulers weren't even in their "capitals" when they were captured.

Delhi is a poor example as the state was largely in revolt before Babur moved on the capital.


The thing about capital capturing is, like Garbon said, dependent on the state you're talking about. While the fall of a capital to the enemy would often have dire consequences, in many instances, such in South East Asia this simply meant that the administration would move and possibly even found a new city or wait for the enemy to depart, as South East Asian wars were always more about resources and slaves rather than territory.

As a clearer example: when the Dutch conquered Jakarta, the local sultan simply moved his whole court, presuming that the invaders would retreat as per custom. Only the appearance of European permanent forts made a real change to this mindset.
 
Toio said:
PLEASE LINK KAIGONS SITE as the old one i used
(http://medlem.spray.se/kaigon/)

gives me a 404 error
That's weird, that link works fine for me.

Vandervecken said:
The thing about capital capturing is, like Garbon said, dependent on the state you're talking about. While the fall of a capital to the enemy would often have dire consequences, in many instances, such in South East Asia this simply meant that the administration would move and possibly even found a new city or wait for the enemy to depart, as South East Asian wars were always more about resources and slaves rather than territory.

As a clearer example: when the Dutch conquered Jakarta, the local sultan simply moved his whole court, presuming that the invaders would retreat as per custom. Only the appearance of European permanent forts made a real change to this mindset.

Maybe it could be possible to let centralisation play a role in this? So high centralisation => big consequences for fall of the capital, low centralisation => less consequences?

Could be fun: this way low centralisation could sometimes be a good thing.
 
Taylor said:
Maybe it could be possible to let centralisation play a role in this? So high centralisation => big consequences for fall of the capital, low centralisation => less consequences?

Could be fun: this way low centralisation could sometimes be a good thing.
Nobody has an opinion on this?
 
Mats_SX said:
Let me suggest: Remove the super-annoying event checks at start-up from a save. They are killing me. I hate hate hate to have events fire before I've even played a bit.


A wonderful suggestion!
 
Havard explained this phenomenon in his Exhaustive Bible of Event Scripting. I'm not sure what we can do about it, although I suppose we could just recalculate the date until we get something in the future.
 
Mats_SX said:
Let me suggest: Remove the super-annoying event checks at start-up from a save. They are killing me. I hate hate hate to have events fire before I've even played a bit.

I support this wholeheartedly.

Another thing: When declaring war on a minor who got a port, the minor will very often build a warship instead of training an army. That makes it so much easier to beat them. I feel that this is only a problem in the early parts of the game, though, when the minors got small armies.
 
MichaelM said:
Havard explained this phenomenon in his Exhaustive Bible of Event Scripting. I'm not sure what we can do about it, although I suppose we could just recalculate the date until we get something in the future.
Somehow make the Save progress close every active offset, and have every Load progress awake them again, but without a check. Could that work?
 
It is sometimes interesting to have events firing the first day... at least for debug purpose. Maybe a special option for developers and modders in order to see all "pending" events firing at start...

Btw, I use this particular "feature" a lot, in order to check what happens at start of AGCEEP 1520 and 1648 scenarios (if I didn't pay attention to the dates when including or modifying events around 1520 and 1648).
 
Should one be able to change Capital? :)
 
YodaMaster said:
It is sometimes interesting to have events firing the first day... at least for debug purpose. Maybe a special option for developers and modders in order to see all "pending" events firing at start...

Btw, I use this particular "feature" a lot, in order to check what happens at start of AGCEEP 1520 and 1648 scenarios (if I didn't pay attention to the dates when including or modifying events around 1520 and 1648).

IIRC there is an issue to restart every 10 years due to colonising/trading revenue not being calculated.
 
Another suggestion: The implementation of a "economic strait", which removes economic penalties across it, but does not allow troops to be marched "on". I believe this might be appropriate in many places on the map.

As a follow-up, they could be changeable in-game, and be dynamically removed/added. An England in control of (parts of) France comes to mind, or Ireland for that matter. Another is Gotland for Sweden and Denmark. Further Crete, Corfu and other Mediterranean islands. Even Denmark-Norway could be connected via Jylland by this kind of strait.
 
YodaMaster said:
Of course, this is a very good idea.
Have you seen my post elsewhere?
 
Mats_SX said:
Another suggestion: The implementation of a "economic strait", which removes economic penalties across it, but does not allow troops to be marched "on". I believe this might be appropriate in many places on the map.

As a follow-up, they could be changeable in-game, and be dynamically removed/added. An England in control of (parts of) France comes to mind, or Ireland for that matter. Another is Gotland for Sweden and Denmark. Further Crete, Corfu and other Mediterranean islands. Even Denmark-Norway could be connected via Jylland by this kind of strait.
What about connections of straits according to wheather? In winter Danmark-Scandinavia could be linked by frost sea as I seem to have read somewhere about the TYW? Whilst in other places winter should prevent any easy landing due to storms and fog?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.