Europa Portugalis discussion thread

[George LeS]

A quick question, presently cranking out refineris as Por, and have run out of sugar and wine provs. Is it worth it to build them in the spice provs? they are about 3600 each now. Since there has been a little goods swapping I thought I might check if the biuldings has been altered to make ref, profitable also in asia.

IMO, manus are always worthwhile, but in your position, I'd look at the others as well. EP demands a more balanced manu mix than usual. I'd assume that you could build naval or even FAAs much cheaper; if so, they're worth it. But I don't put that much weight on the "right goods" theory--it's not all that much $.

In my game, I'm up to 1568, & this time, things are odd. My inflation, only 5.7 when I hit infra 5, is now 9.8. Why? The Ottos, mostly, plus the fact that to keep it low (5.7 is VERY low for me--15.7 would be normal) until then, it meant not developing as I'd like. So after hitting 5, I mint a lot to catch up. Also, my empire is much smaller. Also, note #3 below.

But that's not what's really weird:

1. There's an event giving great relations with Vijayanagar. I allied with them. That makes a big difference with the Deccan/Gujarat wars, by taking a lot of pressure off me. So far, unusual, but not irrational.

2. Ternate still likes me, & has yet to break vassalization.

3. The real kicker: I am now in a war with my 2 noble European allies, England & the Netherlands, with me as leader. (Vij dishonored, but I intend to invite them back.) I don't know how long that'll last, but as long as it does, I'm happy.

Is there any point in trying to keep it together?

 

[Quift]

IMO, manus are always worthwhile, but in your position, I'd look at the others as well. EP demands a more balanced manu mix than usual. I'd assume that you could build naval or even FAAs much cheaper; if so, they're worth it. But I don't put that much weight on the "right goods" theory--it's not all that much $.

In my game, I'm up to 1568, & this time, things are odd. My inflation, only 5.7 when I hit infra 5, is now 9.8. Why? The Ottos, mostly, plus the fact that to keep it low (5.7 is VERY low for me--15.7 would be normal) until then, it meant not developing as I'd like. So after hitting 5, I mint a lot to catch up. Also, my empire is much smaller. Also, note #3 below.

But that's not what's really weird:

1. There's an event giving great relations with Vijayanagar. I allied with them. That makes a big difference with the Deccan/Gujarat wars, by taking a lot of pressure off me. So far, unusual, but not irrational.

2. Ternate still likes me, & has yet to break vassalization.

3. The real kicker: I am now in a war with my 2 noble European allies, England & the Netherlands, with me as leader. (Vij dishonored, but I intend to invite them back.) I don't know how long that'll last, but as long as it does, I'm happy.

Is there any point in trying to keep it together?

Thank you,

in the mid 17th c now and doing quite well. Has finally managed to get the greatest income around (have been following a strict ToT policy only expanding in my own core areas (brazil, leone, south and east africa, western india (the coastline from kutch to trivandere [sic] , malaysia, and australia in the early 17th) and have thus been just after spain for the greatest part of the game. I'm between france and the huge mughals in land tech, second in naval and keeping up in the others. in alliance with a very crippled england (half ofit is white) and I think about rectifying that. gonna finish this GC after al since it's actually a challenge to to play around still even if the nervous and constant looking over my shoulder from the 15th and 16 th centuary is now gone. the others are not going to be a challenge anymore.

 

[George LeS]

Thank you,

in the mid 17th c now and doing quite well. Has finally managed to get the greatest income around (have been following a strict ToT policy only expanding in my own core areas (brazil, leone, south and east africa, western india (the coastline from kutch to trivandere [sic] , malaysia, and australia in the early 17th) and have thus been just after spain for the greatest part of the game. I'm between france and the huge mughals in land tech, second in naval and keeping up in the others. in alliance with a very crippled england (half ofit is white) and I think about rectifying that. gonna finish this GC after al since it's actually a challenge to to play around still even if the nervous and constant looking over my shoulder from the 15th and 16 th centuary is now gone. the others are not going to be a challenge anymore.

I also stick, mostly, to the ToT. I forgot to mention the war I was in, alongside my Northern Heretic allies: Spain. My tech's have taken a bath, as I've been minting like mad, & even raised war taxes, which I never do. Maybe it was a mistake, but Spain scares me--2 tech levels up, & so much larger. Add the "decline of the Por military", a political crisis, & a plague, giving me -2 stab, & crummy morale; it was frightening. I raised mercs upon mercs, & had some decent generals, with siege factors; very effective once I'd shipped them back. I got Galicia & Trin&Tob, & could've gone for more, but I wanted out to fight the 3 wars declared by Malacca, Deccan, & Ternate, & put down rebels. At least that helped my stab. It's now down to Deccan vs me, alone. I just keep losing battles to them.

I have one question, generally. I know many people are much more relaxed about stab & RR, than I am. How do you deal with all the rebels?

 

[Quift]

I also stick, mostly, to the ToT. I forgot to mention the war I was in, alongside my Northern Heretic allies: Spain. My tech's have taken a bath, as I've been minting like mad, & even raised war taxes, which I never do. Maybe it was a mistake, but Spain scares me--2 tech levels up, & so much larger. Add the "decline of the Por military", a political crisis, & a plague, giving me -2 stab, & crummy morale; it was frightening. I raised mercs upon mercs, & had some decent generals, with siege factors; very effective once I'd shipped them back. I got Galicia & Trin&Tob, & could've gone for more, but I wanted out to fight the 3 wars declared by Malacca, Deccan, & Ternate, & put down rebels. At least that helped my stab. It's now down to Deccan vs me, alone. I just keep losing battles to them.

I have one question, generally. I know many people are much more relaxed about stab & RR, than I am. How do you deal with all the rebels?

Normally I don't care much about stability but her eI put about a fourth of my money on it to have a nice and constant +3. All the events that come with good stab are great, and helps me keep my inflation where I want it (hovering between 9-13 %).

I also had an alliance with vijyanagar, sure helps against deccan.

 

[unmerged(9599)]

IMO, manus are always worthwhile, but in your position, I'd look at the others as well. EP demands a more balanced manu mix than usual. I'd assume that you could build naval or even FAAs much cheaper; if so, they're worth it. But I don't put that much weight on the "right goods" theory--it's not all that much $.

Whats done with the manus in EP to demand a more balanced mix. I don't play in a number crunching manner so I haven't noticed it.

As to the right goods its not a massive deal but its good ammount when spread over a hundred years. Always try and build in provinces with the right goods. Its like 1200 extra ducats over 200 years which is pretty nice.

 

[unmerged(31425)]

Do we really know the limits of what modders can change?

AFAIK, we do.

Does that mean that there's a setting which determines this? That is, the AI will not make a serious siege of a province he isn't programmed to go after?

What happens is they are wavering between breaking a siege or continuing one. But this makes them lose troops to attrition and since it is usually the minors that are doing this, oddly enough it helps their economies in the long run. Sometimes the AIs do stupid things like this for no reason, they'd do it at any AI setting. There is a random element involved in their decision making.

Anyway, since I RM everyone I can, I've seen this back-&-forth siege effect in wars in which I have no interest. It can't help the AI's, unless there's a way you set it so certain countries don't do so. Can you?

You can reduce it by making the AIs more likely to siege. But this has problems too.

That works only if it's by troops raised by event, like the Ameida's main force, right? I suppose for some countries, you could put them where troops are usually built.

Right but some AI events give these too.

True, but what if this happens: your EP explorers tend to be short lived. I now understand & accept your reasoning here. Generic ones are long-lived. If they get exp B, during the life of A, what happens to B when A dies? Does he just sit there, ignored, or does he now start out, himself? If it's the 2nd, an ai-only random explorer could be helpful. There's a tough balance between limiting their use by players, & giving the AI what it needs.

When one explorer dies the AI will use the other one. But sometimes he doesn't for a while and sometimes he won't explore at all, even with 3 or 4 of them active. It's random.

Those criteria don't really work for navies after the mid-XVIII C. After all, Nelson commanded only 3 big actions. So he barely makes the list. IRL, the French, & their allies, had learned to avoid action with the brits, unless it was either necessary for some strategic end, or a favorable opportunity arose. Most of the "action" at sea was fleets sailing forth without actually engaging.

The result is that Hughes is a "major" admiral, but Jervis & Duncan aren't, purely because Suffren was unusually agressive. In game play, that'd mean he wouldn't be left in a backwater like India.

Further, someone who fought many little battles, like Cochrane, rates above the victors in really big, & strategically important, victories like St Vincent & Camperdown.

And, by the 3 battles standard, why Collingwood? Or Perry? Or why Brueys, who just got to be trounced at the Nile?

Well I have a list that I inherited from the AGCEEP. So I don't agree with every leader getting leader status. I just don't know the history for every single one of them and so I assume that their leaders would more likely than not meet my requirements and when I find out to the contrary, I delete them.

What really matters, I'd argue, is the continuing command of the major fleets. One major battle should be enough; indeed, in some cases, I wouldn't even ask for that. This applies, not only to the Brits, but to Spain, France, & Holland, as well. For them, anyone who didn't get humiliated, should count.

And as to dates, your method geared to the earlier period, although even then, you've got to give some leeway for the leaders to take command. (In 1500, the time to get from Lisbon to India can eat most of the leader's lifespan). But certainly from 1700 on, for England at least, we have (a) when the leader attained Flag rank, & (b) when he was appointed to command a fleet or squadron. Surely, when that info is available, it's better to use it.

Yes but that kind of info is harder to come by.

The trouble is the interaction of leaders. Shouldn't the real test be, who served under/over whom? In general, I'd argue that your general approach, the effect on the game, is applicable here.

I'll use Nelson as an example of the problems I see, as he's the most documented of all, & I can run much from memory:

I assume you just took over the 1790 start date from other mods. In fact, he was a half-pay (unemployed) captain from 1788-92. He was captain of 1 ship (Agamemnon, 64) in the Med from 1792. He was often given detached commands, occasionally being senior captian over other (smaller) ships, while trying to harrass Boney's Italian ops. In 1795, he gets to be a commodore, thus officially commanding other captians, but only in the absence of a real admiral. (Commodore was not a permanent rank. It lapsed if an admiral showed up, unless the admiral chose otherwise.)

During this period, under Hotham, he took part in the battle off Genoa, as captain of a single ship. By EUII standards, this puts him in command of a battle, of whose conduct he strongly disapproved.

He's still a commodore--by Jervis's decision--at St Vincent. But note, IIRC, he's 4th in seniority here. No way is he in command, despite his importance to the outcome.

He finally became admiral later that month, & he is in command at the Nile. He commanded, if not the fleet, at least all the fighting forces at Copenhagen, so that's OK. But Collingwood was along as 2nd in command at Trafalgar.

Now, in EP, he's given a rank of 1. In fact, he died a vice-admiral, & certainly didn't command the whole navy. So he really doesn't deserve this rank, by the above standard. This is, however, a good example of the game effect being paramount over the formal rank. Collingwood's rank of 4 does put him under Nelson, so he does take over at death.

The above is just an example of the kinds of problems facing the question of rank. Given the fact that, from the mid 1700's, right to the end of the game, you have Britain, France, Spain, & Holland in frequent naval wars, often with the same commanders (Howe, S Hood), it needs careful attention.

I'll switch him to rank 2.

And I would again argue that more admirals are needed for all 3 nations.

BTW, there's a reference to a Portuguese admiral "de Valle" as serving alongside the Brits in the Nap wars. I could find nothing on him. Of course, British spellings of foreign names are extremely unreliable ("Rufrero").

I'd definitely go for more admirals. But I can only study so much at one time. If you, or any one else for that matter, want to make a bunch of leaders to add to EP, I'd be happy to add them. Zacharym87 make quite few himself.

Okay, so sounds like Ormuz is not worth going for as Qara Koynulu/Persia (except perhaps Bahrain?)

Paul

Persia gets a core on Bahrein about 1600.

Some more country-color suggestions:

1 Make Mali Purple to tell them apart from Dutch possessions on the gold coast. (No purple power will ever set foot in that region anyway)

2 Switch the colors of Poland and Litaunia. In this way you are never going to confuse Dutch coastal gains with Polish ones. This has happened to me a couple of times.

Well I'm more concerned with the colors being historical.

An observation: Is the fall of Hungary as hard-coded as you will allow? They have survived in 2 of my 6 games.

I can playtest it and tweak it to happen more historically by making HAB and TUR kill it better.

 

[George LeS]

AFAIK, we do.

Taken literally, that's necessarily true, but I don't know. I was amazed that Moctezuma could actually change something hardcoded. That implies other such features would be accessible to those skilled enough to figure it out.

When one explorer dies the AI will use the other one. But sometimes he doesn't for a while and sometimes he won't explore at all, even with 3 or 4 of them active. It's random.

That tells me what I needed to know. My current game I restarted specifically to test the changes to naval tech. I'm going to write events, starting in 1600, to give exp/conq's to the AI exploringing nations, to compensate for the loss of sight range.

But I'll say this: I'm already 100% convinced it helps naval warfare, if not exploration. Further, I've been paying attention to my own discoveries. I finally found Para by beating the Turks at sea. (I assume they got it by beating the Spanish or English.) There are others, as well. I suspect there may be more value to stolen rutters than I'd thought. But starting in 1600, I'm going to be loading as other countries, to look at their discoveries.

OTOH, I'm seriously thinking of getting rid of naval attrition altogether, & instead work out specific rules on limiting my use of explorers (& perhaps their availability) to compensate. I know the EUII system leads to unhistorical, & un-fun, results in war. But that would be only for my own use; you couldn't put it in a mod. It'd be along the lines of using transports as such, instead of exporing with them, & transporting with warships. It's a limit on my own play.

Well I have a list that I inherited from the AGCEEP....Yes but that kind of info is harder to come by.

I have that info for the RN, it's in Clowes's History. And between him & James & Mahan (& a few others), I know I could work up a list of Brit Admirals, plus any French, Spanish, & Dutch who fought them, from about 1700 on.

I'll switch him to rank 2.

I'd actually argue for about 4, but I'll shelf that topic for the time being.

I'd definitely go for more admirals. But I can only study so much at one time. If you, or any one else for that matter, want to make a bunch of leaders to add to EP, I'd be happy to add them.

I will do so. I don't know how long it'll take, but it is my #1 subject.

As to the right goods its not a massive deal but its good ammount when spread over a hundred years. Always try and build in provinces with the right goods. Its like 1200 extra ducats over 200 years which is pretty nice.

I agree, but I was referring to Quift's point that he was out of sugar/wine provs.

In my own game, I've made it to 1578, (slow, I know) & my alliance is down to Vijayanagar (sp?). Of course, it'll end in 1580, anyway, but this time I'm not knuckling under for the Spanish. I lean toward Branganza, but I'm not certain. IDLF, why not give Crato as a dormant leader, activated only if he becomes king? Or does it really matter?

One thing I've finally figured out: Kutch is very valuable as a bargaining chip. It's usually the 1st thing on the menu for Guj & Mog, so if I want out of the war, it's easy to give up; being a core, I can always go for it later, if I wish. What I wonder is, whether, if you regard a province this way, it's worth it to promote officials, as you'll just lose them again later.

 

[unmerged(9599)]

Taken literally, that's necessarily true, but I don't know. I was amazed that Moctezuma could actually change something hardcoded. That implies other such features would be accessible to those skilled enough to figure it out.

Moders can change everything they want to. Problem is that changing things that are hard coded requires messing with the .exe file which correct me if I'm wrong is illegal.

 

[unmerged(31425)]

That tells me what I needed to know. My current game I restarted specifically to test the changes to naval tech. I'm going to write events, starting in 1600, to give exp/conq's to the AI exploringing nations, to compensate for the loss of sight range.

Most of the colonial AIs in EP have explorers for long stretches of time already. I have a few events giving them explorers already too.

I have that info for the RN, it's in Clowes's History. And between him & James & Mahan (& a few others), I know I could work up a list of Brit Admirals, plus any French, Spanish, & Dutch who fought them, from about 1700 on.

Well if they led their nations in 3 battles I'll add any you recommend. I just want to keep their standards uniform with the rest of the other countries. I don't mind adding tons of new admirals either.

IDLF, why not give Crato as a dormant leader, activated only if he becomes king? Or does it really matter?

Generally I'm trying to shy away from those types of leaders. If I make him, I have to make others for other countries too and then that causes a lot more work and having to consider all kinds of odd circumstances. I try to keep leader standards as uniform as possible.

 

[Maximilliano]

Is EP usable with WATK or is it vanilla map only?

 

[unmerged(9599)]

I think its vanilla map only

 

[George LeS]

Moders can change everything they want to. Problem is that changing things that are hard coded requires messing with the .exe file which correct me if I'm wrong is illegal.

I've always believed it illegal, but look at the tech effects mod. It changes the level at which a bonus effect kicks in; you can set maximum forts for level 0, if you want. I believe that's messing with the .exe, isn't it? & if so, well, it's available here on the Paradox board, so what does that say of the status?

It's because of this tool that I'm inclined to see things as pretty open-ended. I'd still assume you couldn't add a new unit type, but you probably could give an armament to transports.

Most of the colonial AIs in EP have explorers for long stretches of time already. I have a few events giving them explorers already too.

I've decided to drop the exp/conq idea. But I have been saving every 25 years, & keeping the files. The Dutch & English seem to know a lot, even without the sight range. I've found, for my own discoveries, that Stolen Rutters looms larger as a factor, & I know both those countries have beaten me plenty of times. I don't think the discovery problem will be all that big.

Well if they led their nations in 3 battles I'll add any you recommend. I just want to keep their standards uniform with the rest of the other countries. I don't mind adding tons of new admirals either.

It'll take a while, but I'll get you a list. It'll include anyone I think you should have, with notes on how/why they qualify. Of course, you're free to reject my reasoning. But there really is a difference in naval war from the Dutch wars onward. And the 3-battle limit leads to an odd result: if someone did really well, there isn't a 2nd or 3rd battle; if he didn't, the enemy can keep coming at you. Also, frankly, the French & Spanish will need the help; I'd argue that anyone who did reasonably well against the Brits, should be in. But again, you'll get the list, & see my arguments. Also, note, strictly speaking, Nelson commanded only 2 battles.

I've gotten to 1636. Got lucky, in that the Dutch dishonored when England DOW'd me, a while back, & then allied with Brandenburg. England is with Denmark. So I don't have the double-whammy going against me. In the most recent Dutch war, I got Jakarta from them. I've also taken Canton. OTOH, the English are drubbing me. They've taken Parana & Uruguay, & I don't really see how to stop them eating up all Brazil from the south.

Is there some reason that the Anglo-Danish alliance is by far the most eager to invade Portugal? Even the Spanish, when fighting me, are far less agressive in trying to take my homeland. Anyway, they've often been besieging 2 provs at once, & I've had to mint for mercs, screwing my econ.

Can someone point me to the instructions for screenshots? I know it's outthere, but can't find it.

 

[unmerged(9599)]

Tech can be changed in simple csv files at Europa Universalis 2\DB.

CSV files can be edited with notepad or a spredsheet tool.

They are definatly not part of the .exe. Anything that is hard coded is part of the exe and cannot be legally changed. This is in many case turned a blind eye to .ie no time limit patch.

Giving an armanent to transports is not doable. Look in naval.csv and you will see what I mean.

Adding a new unit type is changing the .exe and though possible is illegal.

If I knew what I was doing edditing the exe with a proper editor I could add a naval range combat system a la HOI2 to naval combat or add a new unit type.

Pressing F11 should take a screen shot and deposit it in your EU2 folder.

If the majority of attacks on your home land are danish while England strikes your colonies it makes sense. Denmark is unlikly to have colonial assets and see no point in acquiring territories it can't defend.

 

[George LeS]

Tech can be changed in simple csv files at Europa Universalis 2\DB.

CSV files can be edited with notepad or a spredsheet tool.

They are definatly not part of the .exe. Anything that is hard coded is part of the exe and cannot be legally changed. This is in many case turned a blind eye to .ie no time limit patch.

Giving an armanent to transports is not doable. Look in naval.csv and you will see what I mean.

Adding a new unit type is changing the .exe and though possible is illegal.

If I knew what I was doing edditing the exe with a proper editor I could add a naval range combat system a la HOI2 to naval combat or add a new unit type.

Pressing F11 should take a screen shot and deposit it in your EU2 folder.

If the majority of attacks on your home land are danish while England strikes your colonies it makes sense. Denmark is unlikly to have colonial assets and see no point in acquiring territories it can't defend.

1. I wasn't clear enough: the tech effects mod I'm talking about (Moctezuma's) does more than that. It changes the tech level at which a bonus effect takes place. E.g., you can make artillery available at level 0, or, as I've done, change naval sight range from level 18 to 60. You definitely can't do that in the csv tech tables. I think it's in the exe, but of course I may be wrong.

2. Given (1), & given that the fantasy scenario does give transports combat factors, I suspect a clever hacker could manage putting them in the regular game. (Not by me, of course.) I know it can't be done in the csv tables. But my general point is that this mod has impressed me no end; it seems there are possibilities far beyond what I thought possible.

3. I know about f11, but I don't know how to post them here. IIRC, it involves storage of my own, somehow. That's the link I'd like.

4. Actually, it's both England & Denmark invading me, with England providing most of the troops. I can usually deal with a Danish-only force, both by land & by sea. But the Brits routinely kick my butt. & it's the Brit agressiveness which confuses me. I don't think I've seen that (this late in the game) except when they're allied with Denmark. But I've been through this, & seen it 3 times. Of course, they also are chewing on my colonies. All-in-all, I thing the Brits are tougher than the Dutch. The latter have better protected colonies, & their tech & morale levels are a bit better, so I lose more battles, but the Brits attack everywhere, while the Dutch have predictable targets, so even though I can't see their fleets, I can usually tell where to go/avoid. And they usually are chewing on a few predictable provinces: Sunda, Amapa, Natal, maybe one of the S Indian provs, sometimes Leone. But they never sidestep Amapa or Natal. OTOH, the Brits will be simulanteously attacking Portugal, any my islands, Uruguay, India, & several African provs. So far, I've found that unanswerable, as I've been repulsed in almost all my attacks on their American colonies.

Not that I'm complaining, mind you. I love the challenge. Normally, by the 1630's, the only thing left is to set myself goals (sometimes I'll turn on Dynamic missions & try to achieve the really stupid ones it picks). But here, I'm still trying to maintain my empire.

 

[kbromer]

3. I know about f11, but I don't know how to post them here. IIRC, it involves storage of my own, somehow. That's the link I'd like.

Just about to start my first EP game this afternoon, and from what I've read, I'm quite excited to get rolling.

As to the above:

http://photobucket.com/

Start a new account. (Free)
Upload the pictures into the account (self-explanatory once you're there.)
Copy and paste the " " tags provided into your forum post, and you'll be good to go.

Here, a picture of couch I had in college from Photobucket that I used when I gave it away on Craigslist a couple of years ago, using the IMG tags:

[IMG]http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m116/kbromer/couch.jpg

 

[unmerged(16501)]

Actually I'd probably deal with [Denmark with German culture getting too strong] by making neighboring countries like Brandenburg, Sweden etc. beat up a too successful Danish human player.

A much better solution!

Flavor events are human freebies. AIs cannot take advantage of them as well. In EP I give events that are freebies, but I save it for important things and then I make things harder for human players than for AIs by making AIs DOW them.

I see. I guess that is also why some ACGEEP-events do nothing but give +10 infra and the like. You could do the same for EP I guess. But it would mean a lot of work, of course.

(On the Great Fire-even) To tell you the truth I've been thinking about making a random event for each calamity. I've got a lot for plagues already. I think this is an easier way to deal with them. Otherwise I wind up making so many historical events like these.

I read you. There are so many mundane diasters in history that it does not even make sense to count or list them as such. Also, they are fairly boring to read about and play through for a human player.

Actually these types of historical events I'm quite keen on. I very much like to make historical events that make changes to provinces.

I would prefer to find a historically justifiable event to give a SY to Denmark.

I would go with the Great Naval Reform, the Event I just scripted for the Nyboder-quarters or the East India Company. In that order.

Do you think Christian IV's expansion in Copenhagen here would be enough to justify a SY?

Definetely. If not but Nyboder itself then by the huge naval expansion that took place under Christian IV.

Thnx. for the events. It's much appreciated. Danish history is not very good in English. We have a scant amount of it available to us. I've looked for it before.

Actually I have a huge Danish Event file that has not even been submitted to the ACGEEP yet. I will send it to you when I return from Vietnam and then you can copy, paste and modify as desired

Speaking of leaders: Danish kings were not particulary good monarchs but IMO they never recieved the stats that they deserve if you compare them to how other monarchs are modelled in the game.

This is because Paradox is Swedish (I kid you not - the original Denmark-Sweden setup in EU was ludricrus ie. COT in Svealand of all places)) and Johan + others still gave Sweden some very ahistorical options and boosts.

I see however, that you are using the ACGEEP monarch stats for Denmark. These were not right eigther I can say. They were made på Suketh, whom I know personally and he also agreed on the ACGEEP-forums that he had set the Danish monarch stats too low when he saw how other nations' monarchs were modelled.

Another but seperate point:

I am a big fan of straightjacking events. In my modified Denmark-event-file I have removed alot of option B and C's as the AI will sometimes choose the wrong options and screw up a great opportunity and a human player will always exploit multiple options to do what fits him best.

Case in point:

The Great Naval Reform: If Denmark is pursuing land wars in Germany or with Sweden, why would you ever choose the Naval options? Of course you would go with the Army option even though Denmark historically has a much weaker military than its finances and population size would otherwise have allowed.

Consequently, I have removed options like these and thereby forced the naval choice with the various historical consequentses it curtails.

 

[unmerged(31425)]

I would go with the Great Naval Reform, the Event I just scripted for the Nyboder-quarters or the East India Company. In that order.

Definetely. If not but Nyboder itself then by the huge naval expansion that took place under Christian IV.

OK. Sounds good. I'll do that. Should make the Danish AI crank more ships too.

Actually I have a huge Danish Event file that has not even been submitted to the ACGEEP yet. I will send it to you when I return from Vietnam and then you can copy, paste and modify as desired

Sounds good.

Speaking of leaders: Danish kings were not particulary good monarchs but IMO they never recieved the stats that they deserve if you compare them to how other monarchs are modelled in the game.

This is because Paradox is Swedish (I kid you not - the original Denmark-Sweden setup in EU was ludricrus ie. COT in Svealand of all places)) and Johan + others still gave Sweden some very ahistorical options and boosts.

I see however, that you are using the ACGEEP monarch stats for Denmark. These were not right eigther I can say. They were made på Suketh, whom I know personally and he also agreed on the ACGEEP-forums that he had set the Danish monarch stats too low when he saw how other nations' monarchs were modelled.

If you want to make recommendations for monarch stat changes I'd be happy to add them. One thing I try very much to avoid though is ADM or MIL stats that are lower than 5. I try and reserve these two stats being lower than 5 for horrible monarchs or to model historic decline. If they are low the AIs economies get trashed badly. Keep in mind that in EP an even greater portion of a country's income(including the ones played by AIs) is from trade. So merchants in COTs dropping like flies due to low ADM can be devestating to an AI's teching. It can also lead to a greater tendency to be DOWed by other AIs. Also the low MIL stats mean they can be more abused by humans and other AIs will be more likely to brutalize them and grab territory in wars. For nations like Denmark, for example, who need to hold most of their historic territory the whole game to be strong it can be really bad if they get hammered too much during a weak monarch's reign.

In the AGCEEP the monarchs typically have very weak stats. Not sure why they did this but it's pretty bad for the AIs. So I am often having to up the stats of the monarchs in EP.

I am a big fan of straightjacking events. In my modified Denmark-event-file I have removed alot of option B and C's as the AI will sometimes choose the wrong options and screw up a great opportunity and a human player will always exploit multiple options to do what fits him best.

Case in point:

The Great Naval Reform: If Denmark is pursuing land wars in Germany or with Sweden, why would you ever choose the Naval options? Of course you would go with the Army option even though Denmark historically has a much weaker military than its finances and population size would otherwise have allowed.

Consequently, I have removed options like these and thereby forced the naval choice with the various historical consequentses it curtails.

I think the B and C choices should typically be not quite as good as the A choices. Otherwise humans will just consistently pick them. As for the AIs, I can give the benefits of a good A choice from a historical event in AI only events. Often they already have one soon after the historic event in question and then I can just add them to it.

 

[Quift]

For nations like Denmark, for example, who need to hold most of their historic territory the whole game to be strong it can be really bad if they get hammered too much during a weak monarch's reign.

Sorry to point it out but denmark is supposed to loose about 70-80 % of it's territory during gametime to sweden and brandenburg. I rarely see sweden rise during EP games (not once in 6 games), but kept firmly under the danish boot, and failing to take key territory such as vårpommern, gotland, skåne and gotland and norway, leaving a rump state of three provs (this would be the historic outcome).

last game sweden was reduced to one province, with the entire finland being firmly prussian, a big denmark (every game in ep denmark has taken a lot of territory in germany, making it much stronger than historically and thus able too keep down the freedom loving swedes).

also, played through a game as portugal til the end, england was never a bother, mostly since half of it was austrian white, colonywise they didn't do that good either. France managed to colonise wonderfully in french loiusiana territory (great lakes), and denmark did good in africa. spain managed to get the philipines, and all of their intended american territory. the dutch were quite easily kept in check altough the only territoy chaning hands were a few off west african cities. Lost the CoT in jakarta to a one province makassar (thank you very much).

I like the difficulties the general fort level gives. taking Aden must have costed me about 500 000 troops (mercs shipped from crete via sinai).

also, have one request. I took alexandria, crete, rhodos, sinai, judea, samaria, lebanon and aleppo from the turks in prior attempts to take Aden. and of course wanted to create some puppets of it. Is it possible to include sinai and samaria to Jerusalem as well as making it a catholic state? or a crusader kingdom event? just for fun...

and generaloly great mod. was a good gae where I was challenged (as POR) til the early 18th centuary. on top of things but with the feeling of someone breathing down my neck. Thank you for your effort.

 

[unmerged(16501)]

Sorry to point it out but denmark is supposed to loose about 70-80 % of it's territory during gametime to sweden and brandenburg.

Uhm not exactly. Norway was lost in 1814 as a result of the Napoleonic wars but the Napoleonic wars are not really modelled in EP. At least if they are they never proceed as they did historically.

An Norway was not conquered as such. It was ceded to Sweden as part of the peace agreement Denmark had to sign with Russia/England/Sweden.

But this should by no means be hard-coded or an auto-win for Sweden. Napoleon could easily have gone about his business way beyond 1819 were it not for diasters like the invasion of Russia.

So I am more inclined to look at it the way that Denmark should loose ~30-35% of its territory during game time.

I rarely see sweden rise during EP games (not once in 6 games), but kept firmly under the danish boot, and failing to take key territory such as vårpommern, gotland, skåne and gotland and norway, leaving a rump state of three provs (this would be the historic outcome).

Keeping Norway out of the question I otherwise agree. Denmark should loose Jämtlandet, Gotland, and Skåne to Sweden and Sweden should also be able to carve out a baltic empire at least for som 50-80 years.

Sweden should be the stronger power on land, Denmark at sea.

But the way the AI works, this is hard to model without Sweden eating up Denmark in every game (ie classic vanilla EU2).

One suggestion that just might work though would be to have very large fortresses in the Norwegian provinces that Denmark is supposed to keep so that they are only easily conquerable in the late game.

Also I am not sure what provinces you would see taken by Brandenburg. Oldenburg was swapped for the Gottorp lands in 1773 voulentarily and Holstein was not lost until 1864.

 

[unmerged(16501)]

Also another suggestion:

The historical placement of COTs around the Baltic would be Fladern, Mecklemburg, Danzig, and Courland.

Not Copenhagen, not Svealand.

(Sweden can get ahistorical COTs in Svealand by option B choices in some events. I personally view this as little more than a vestige of Paradox's original overdone Sweden-setup)

But the only way to model the insane revenues from the Sund Due without granting Denmark a COT would be to add something like +40 tax value to Copenhagen.

(The Sund Due actually composed something like 1/3 of Denmarks Medieval/Renaissance income. After Peder Oxe the revenues tripled, but the infrastructure had also evolved parallely and as such the Sund Due still constituated about 33% of the Danish income although it had become numerically greater in the mean time).