Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Experiences with IGC 2.0k

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
Hartmann

Hartmann

Kaiser v.G.G. (abdicated)
1 Badges
Oct 20, 2000
4.418
0
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis IV
Running hands off games as tests becomes very time consuming for us, especially as we don´t have "betatesters" for the IGC. That´s why we want You to report Your gaming experiences here. Basically everything You find worth mentioning and which You think could be of interest for us.

Some rules though:
1. Please always use the latest patch from Paradox.
2. Don´t post issues not related to the IGC but to EU as a whole.
3. Let´s say You played Your first game with IGC 2.0k and Turkey did poorly whereas Lorraine had 8 provinces in the end. Then please don´t claim "Turkey always gets screwed while Lorraine is much too strong". This would not help but at best confuse us. Okies? ;)

Hartmann
 
Originally posted by Hartmann
Running hands off games as tests becomes very time consuming for us, especially as we don´t have "betatesters" for the IGC. That´s why we want You to report Your gaming experiences here. Basically everything You find worth mentioning and which You think could be of interest for us.

Some rules though:
1. Please always use the latest patch from Paradox.
2. Don´t post issues not related to the IGC but to EU as a whole.
3. Let´s say You played Your first game with IGC 2.0k and Turkey did poorly whereas Lorraine had 8 provinces in the end. Then please don´t claim "Turkey always gets screwed while Lorraine is much too strong". This would not help but at best confuse us. Okies? ;)

Hartmann
Click to expand...

But Hartmann Turkey does allways poorly (despite Selim I, and Suleyman I) :D

In my last game i changed the turkish badboy from 18 to 0 after the annexation of memlukes and the turkish AI ended with almost annexation of Austria :rolleyes:
 
After thinking about the map in 2.0k I came to the following conclusion:

Bogutjar back to Golden Horde
Lugansk to Golden Horde

this should represent the fact that their possesions stretched over the Volga river, which is not the case otherwise.

Vorones to Poland and Donetsk to Poland

Tambow back to Kazan.

Astrakhan a one province minor

Uralsk to Sibir in exchange for Tenghiz.
Tenghiz is free

Karabogaz to Uzbeks.

Lipetsk can be either Russian or Ryazanian.

Set the population everywhere to 3000.

Astrakhan COT doesn't work (because of religion, drop it)

Crook for the President!
 
Re: Re: Experiences with IGC 2.0k

Originally posted by Yasko


But Hartmann Turkey does allways poorly (despite Selim I, and Suleyman I) :D

In my last game i changed the turkish badboy from 18 to 0 after the annexation of memlukes and the turkish AI ended with almost annexation of Austria :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, the Turkish AI has a sever problem with Annexation of Mamelucks in one fell swoop and the resulting BB for it. Any human will play a lot more intelligently, nibbeling away on it 3 provinces a time.
Nver the less, this probably fall under Hartmanns "don't complain about things related to the EU gameengine here".
There is nothing IGC can do about it AFAIK.
 
Bogutjar back to Golden Horde
Lugansk to Golden Horde

this should represent the fact that their possesions stretched over the Volga river, which is not the case otherwise.

It´s true that Lithuania didn´t stretch to the Volga, but that´s again the darn map that can´t be helped. The other solution does not take into account, that just a year before, the Horde made it´s final and biggest mistake in fighting their natural ally Poland (on the behest of the Sultan). They lost and were in serious disarray since then, loosing their already very weak grip over all border territories. Since 1491 most of Bogutjar should be in Lithuanian hands while Lugansk is Crimea. Almost all maps either show all the territories we speak about as "unsure" or like this

http://www.dalmatia.net/belmonte/renaissance/a1493eu.gif

Tambow back to Kazan.

Looks ugly topographically, really.

Astrakhan a one province minor.

Who should have Orenburg?

Uralsk to Sibir in exchange for Tenghiz.
Tenghiz is free

You maybe mean Orenburg instead of Uralsk?

Karabogaz to Uzbeks.

No problem.

Astrakhan COT doesn't work (because of religion, drop it)

Well, seems so, but let´s hear whether other folks maybe want to retain the option.

Crook for the President!

Where´s that in the files? :D

Hartmann
 
Re: Re: Experiences with IGC 2.0k

Originally posted by Yasko


But Hartmann Turkey does allways poorly (despite Selim I, and Suleyman I) :D

In my last game i changed the turkish badboy from 18 to 0 after the annexation of memlukes and the turkish AI ended with almost annexation of Austria :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Turkey annexing the Mamelukes ?? :eek:
 
Turkey doesn't seem to have too much of a problem with the Mameluks if the Hafsid is allied with them, as they seem to always take at least two provinces. Too bad that wasn't really historical. Also, Wallchia seems to stay allied to Turkey the entire game. Is there an relations dropping event that can prevent this?
 
Hartmann:

I would rather give Bogutjar to Golden Horde, even though GH might have been weakened, Poland didn't really have their control of the area as well. Lugansk is also highly debatable, To me it extends WAY TOO MUCH to the north. But I guess, that can be left to Crimea.

One thing about Astrakhan, there are maps which show that Kalmuk/Kouban area as theirs (after the fall of GH). Sibir in all truth should be renamed Nogais (because that's what exactly is shown on EU map).

So, Orenburg to Sibir (Nogais) in exchange for Tenghiz and Orsk.

Kalmuk to Astrakhan ?

Tambov to Kazan for 2 reasons:

a) as soon as I started the game, Russia (not me :) ) declared war on Kazan(!), dropping it stability to -3. I think AI is programmed to attack Kazan now no matter what. Giving Tambov to Kazan will allow them at least build some troops.

b)Plus Kazan did have possesions there. And Ryazan is way too big.

Crook
 
That first reason is an interesting one. If Russia attacks Kazan nevertheless of their relation, making Kazan a vassal of Russia seriously hampers them.

I tried this once too with Persia and Iraq. Made Iraq a vassal and I hoped Persia would diplo annex them eventually but more often than not they declared war on Iraq as soon as possible getting their realm into total disarray.
 
I upped Russia's relations with Kazan to +40. Now they seem to totally forget about Pskov and Ryazan, and pumping their money into Kazan. In 1494 the relationship between Kazan and Russia is +175.
I think we should give a random event to Russia/Poland, so that it would even worsen their relationship (I don't know if that's gonna help, I reeally wanna see Russo-Polish wars in 1494, 1500 and 1514)

Sibir annexed Astrakhan, and Turkey is pounding the Mamelukes at the moment. England beat the crap out of Scotland, I don't know why they didn't annex them, Scotland didn't have a single soldier left.

England is too strong now?
 
It may be more helpful

to describe tendencies across several games than a single instance. Maybe the thing to do is say "Out of five games I saw Russia diplo-annex Khazan by 1520 in 3 of them."

I dunno. What kind of info would be best for development FB?

I'm out of the loop right now as I am using my laptop to pay and that is not running the latest EU patch. I don't know if it makes that much of a difference, but I don't want to provide misleading info in the case 1.07a is a very different animal from the 1.08 patch version. I just don't run 1.08 so much as it is on my desktops (where I do productive work like post in the scenario forum!).
 
Maybe there could be an option that would make it harder or easier on England. I think just having an option to have Calais to be either English or French would fix this without anything major. England usually takes a hit when France and Scotland get in an alliance early and England has to fight a war on two fronts. The Scottish get something like the Marches while the French get Calais and one of the three southern English provinces. That usually puts England at a large disadvantage early.
 
I'm playing as Austria, and things are going pretty good (I've reached 1650 or so). Through extraordinary luck, I managed to inherit Hungary (which is, of course, historical) as well as an expanded Saxony (which certainly isn't). I'm playing with the Austrian Netherlands option (although I disagree with it, I'm not stupid :) ), and I let the Dutch revolt and took back everything but the Hague (better letting one province go than ruin the whole lot through years of revolts). France pretty much dominated Italy (conquering Milan, Modena, the Papal States, and Naples), but I've conquered quite a bit of the north from them. Sweden hasn't performed well, but that's proably more due to my Austria-Denmark-Russia alliance than any faults of the system. England is also doing badly, although at first they did well against France (even conquering Picardie), but later France invaded the island and has taken over all of southwestern England. Eire has not only survived, but has sent out colonists to a couple of places. Moldovia has kicked some butt simply due to having taken Kurland (and the CoT) from the Teutonic Knights while allied to Poland. They don't just dominate that CoT, but also from time to time monopolize Venice; needless to say, they are raking in the ducats. I've probably got a pretty high BB rating from conquering Bavaria (which stupidly attacked me and my allies on its own at the very start of the game) and Bohemia (hey, those are my shields on the country), but I've managed to get elected HRE almost every time because I channel huge amounts of money to a select number of electors (Baden, Lorraine, Cologne, Hessen, and the Palatinate) and keep them on good enough terms that they keep electing me Emperor.

Other than a few oddball colonies (Pomerania is in Brazil, but they have become a major north German power, having taken out the Hanseatic League; Eire and Venice have a couple of colonies here and there), the colonial picture is pretty close to the historical trends, although the Dutch have done somewhat better than they actually did in North America. Africa has mainly been colonized by Portugal and France (with the odd Turkish colony here and there), while Indonesia is mostly divided between Portugal and the Dutch. The most amazing thing is that Spain has actually colonized the Philippines!!!! I've never seen nor heard of that actually happening before.
 
Various bits and pieces:

- I´m glad to hear about Spain colonising the Philippines. :)
- England will not be weakened.
- Crook: I considered renaming Sibir to Nogai some time before, but what then with the monarchs and leaders? :(
- In my testgames, in about 50% of trials, Russia declares war on Kazan right away. But the stability drop is easily overcome and compensated by their faster advance on the Horde etc.
In the other 50% of games, they wait until the vassalship expires, leading to a more historical timeline.
- Kouban will be considered. Lugansk not. Bogutjar maybe, but I´m quite pleased with it as it is.
- Ryazan is too big now, but the other solutions seem to me even more strange at the moment.
- Savant: 1.07c and IGC since 1.9 do not match.

Hartmann
 
Ragusa = Unknown string wanted

I have noticed a little bug in the 2.0 version. At least it is like this on my computer. When strating the campaign, doesn't matter as which country, the small country of Ragusa is called Unknown string wanted. Why is that?
 
Blomman

You need to run the IGC patch that comes with the IGC. Execute it first and then run a game. The patch does the editing that Paradox doesn't want the IGC team to do to the text.csv file which containes the country designations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back