Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Europa Universalis Classic

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.
All,

As suggested by FAL, we will be using the AGC-EEP leader files (http://www.agceep.com/ it's moddir and will not corrupt your vanilla EU II installation) in place of the ordinary leader files. I've yet to go through any but Spain and the OE's, and that was some time ago, but as I recall they add substantially and make corrections to stats, birth dates and death dates.

Where they have not corrected certain flaws I know exist in 1520, in part due to the patch from which it drew its leader tables, I will correct them.

EDIT: Everything I mentioned is evidently corrected in AGC-EEP. Anything else, bring it to my attention.

Austria's Prinz Eugene and von Wallenstein will probably also receive the bump customary in my games. Admirals Nelson and Cochrane will be curbed slightly as is customary in my games.

If there are any objections, raise them now. This I hope is sufficient to stand in place of random leaders, which as you all know I badly hate. If no objections are raised, I will paste the leader files into the leader tables, so no additional downloads will be required.

One other issue is possibly waiving the land 5 rule for Holland, to the extent of allowing it to go naval 2-3 or even full naval. This is because the 1.09 dramatically altered naval support in favor of England, to the extent that countries like Portugal and Holland are no longer capable of competing.

Discuss.
 
Last edited:
All,

Just in glancing over it, I've noticed the mod makes several substantial changes to existing leaders. So far, I haven't seen anything objectionable (not even poor Vitus Bering), but let me say:

It is your responsibility to scan your country's, or any country's, leader file and bring those objections to me in advance of the game.

If I notice anything over the top, I will do something about it. But I may not see everything and what I do see may not be objectionable to me. For example, I posted this notice after I saw what they did to Gerhard von Blucher. I actually agree with the changes, as I feel Blucher was badly overrated and also given far too long a life considering he was out of service for a long period. At the same time, two excellent Prussian Generals have been graciously, some would say excessively boosted, namely von Scherwin von Sydelitz. All in all, I feel it's a more historical file that gives as much as it takes away. WC, however, may disagree. :D

So I reiterate, look at the file in AGC-EEP or the save when I post it on Friday or Saturday. I'll listen to any reasonable arguments, but no argument is reasonable if it's raised in this fashion: "What the fuck? I just got Blucher and he's been gimped! This is an outrage!"
 
I don't think boosting Wallenstein and PE is necessary. Historical maybe, but such wouldn't exactly be balanced.
 
John,

Point taken.
 
About the AGCEEP leaders:

Some of the explorers are dormant, because AGCEEP has events tied to them. Make sure to remove this :)

We played with the AGCEEP leaders (and stats) in Götterdammerung 2 and Tonio made a summary of what was actually changed. I'll see if I can dig it up.

EDIT:

Austria

Prussia

France

Spain

I generally agree with all these AGCEEP changes, except for Henri 'Paris vaut bien une messe' IV of France.
 
Last edited:
FAL, wanted to second that when read HG post.
 
HG, i like this rule as well:

"If you get vassalised by a human player you must stay that way for 20 years, unless the overlord chooses to break it. After 20 years the vassal can break vassalage, the overlord can then choose to attack them after that again or let them go.
As a vassal :
You cannot enter any other alliance than that of your overlord.
You must accept a proposal of TA/MA from your overlord.
You are not allowed to start any wars without permission of your overlord
You are *not* required to dow someone at the command of your overlord, send him cash at his command or generally help your overlord if *he* is the agressor in a war."

usually same added for force-convertion and force-MA received
20 years date when it can`t be changed
 
Exploit list from Gotter2 is nice too:

The following is forbidden. The list is probably not complete.

Attacking an enemy fleet with pirates, as well as comparatively very small fleets, only made to inhibit loading/landing.
Releasing one or more vassals during wartime, to hinder an enemy.
Force-burning of manufactories, i.e. repeated move and halt orders to an army in a province with a manufactory.
Using lag to your advantage. This includes (but is not limited to): Sending lag colonists, building lag fortresses, sending lag missionaries, using lag diplomats. (The exception is using lag diplomats to send cash).
Declaring a 'fake' war on a country, with the aim to:
Increase the stability of the nation you declare war on.
Change the religion of a protestant or Counter-Reformed-Catholic nation back to Catholicism before the Edict of Tolerance.
Exploiting Simultanity: Using the game engine to break a deal, that would occur simultaneously in the real word. This includes (but is not limited to) the 'sale' of something in game.
Converting from Catholiscism to either Counter-reformed-Catholicism or Protestantism and then switching back to Catholiscism before the Edict of Tolerance.
Trading maps with the AI.
Sending loans to the AI.
Signing a peace deal with the AI, that bankrupts it in the same day.
Breaking a truce, except when the truce is a result of a province swap deal in game. You are not allowed to dow AI alliance members of someone you have a truce with.
 
I don't know enough about the leaders to notice problems. If I raised a beef, it would be that a mod was imposed on the game without the members having a chance to approve it. Its only because i'm sure that the everyone else endorses the new leaderfiles, that I won't say anything.

(Personally, I dislike the leader system in EU2, because it makes them far too overbearing on the gameplay, but I know i'm in the one-person minority on that one too)
 
boo Gaius boo
 
PJL said:
The game needs a Poland really.
Click to expand...

Even do not dare to look at me!

EDIT: Ah, we will not have Poland. Good, I could not live if someone else play it :)
 
About maps and rules: will Spain be allow to annex Portugal in early game?
 
bobi said:
ej can i join the game
Click to expand...

Sorry, but we want to play 9 and we already have all slots filled.
 
Gaius,

If you reread my first post on the subject, I invited the group to raise objections. Any objections raised will be considered for their thoughtfulness and resort to factual evidence. In this case, although I myself agree with your assessment of leaders, the use of the EEP/AGC tables (not mod, the tables will be pasted into the save file) is intended as an alternative to random leaders. Apart from myself, and perhaps yourself, this group tends to play with them.

If by sound argument or wildly popular acclaim, we can drop it and go with the vanilla leaders. This is why I asked for objections above.

However, I don't claim this is a democracy. I've never run a game as a democracy and I don't have any desire to try it now. I've found that in EU II the best form of government is, in Voltaire's immortal words, a benevolent dictatorship tempered by the occasional assassination*.

Tonio,

I consider everything in that list but turbo burning and truce breaking an exploit, yes, but I'm not going to adopt a laundry list for the same reason we in this country have a ninth amendment to the Constitution. As soon as I say this is an exploit, people assume anything not on the list is not an exploit. Given how many of them there are, I prefer to leave it to judgment.

The vassal rules are excellent. Thanks for bringing them up. I'll add a condensed version once I've gotten some sleep. I might also add that truce breaking is prohibited, but I'm not sure yet. Under ordinary circumstances, it ought to be allowed. However, there are certain things in the engine that make it highly exploitable. I'll give it some thought.

I'm also thinking about capping forts at 4, perhaps 5. In a game like this, there's usually enough money for some countries-namely England and Spain-to build max fortifications nationwide. With the changes to the fire phase, that's become a bit of a problem. But I'm not sure about this.

And as for letting you play France, I told you I was going to let you play France. If you feel it would be better for the game to nobly sacrifice your country for Brandenburg or what have you, however, I wouldn't object.

FAL,

Thanks a lot. I'll have a look at Henri.

*In this case, we will substitute "page after page of bitching" for "assassination."

Although in my experience, again, this is not necessarily preferable.
 
All,

I need to get some sleep before I can look through all the leader files, but having looked at the link Tonio posted to proposed Russian changes I can confidently say I will not be giving Russia a 6-5-5 admiral.

As important as Ushakov is to Russian/Soviet naval tradition, I don't find his victories as impressive as, say, Horatio Nelson's, particularly given how much of his reputation was based on victories over the 18th century Ottoman Navy.
 
HG, the topic about taking France was joke, kinda same as link at the same post.

Forts limitations. I`m against it.

Truce not allowed to break. I`m for it. But then it must be described not to attack alliance members, who you have truce with. Or there is exploit, who broke truce
 
Tonio,

One alternative is to ban alliances except in wartime. I'm in favor of this anyway, but it'd solve the truce problem.

And I think a compromise on truce breaking is to impose some rather large amount of BB by edit on anyone who does it. Perhaps in the 15-20 range. I'm not sure if this is sufficient to stop the worst abuse-players holding out until forced peace and then immediately breaking the truce to punish the attacker-but there ought to be some option for truce breaking, particularly in the last fifty years of the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back