Grand Campaign Lite

[Sidney]

Unimproved Grand Campaign

If the IGC was about adding in more then I'm gonna try and figure out how to remove some states from a 1419 scenario for those of use running less than hefty machines.

My main focus of the game is and will be Europe so primary areas up for getting lopped off are Sub-Saharan Africa, Amerindians and some of the Asian states. I'n even willing to look at removal of some of the more contentious European states- some of the French vassals, Turkish minors. Fewer states means faster game times.

I don't want to be totally brutal with my destruction of RoTW civilizations so I'd like help decided on how to be surgical rather than blunt.

At the same time I'm also interested in making some other changes like Monarchs, Leaders and provinces as well so this isn't just an effort for destruction.

Anyone else interested in trimming some fat?

 

[Yozhik]

So THAT's why EU2 is turtle-slow on my machine...

Fat trimming: there are annexation events in EU2 (Burgundy getting Brabant and Luxembourg for one)... can I suggest concentrating on those (I'd gladly help, for the reasons stated above)?

I would strongly advise against trimming the colonials, however. The presence of already existing tribes is what is going to slow down the colonial expansion big time (think religion and culture)... while it is a good idea to trim the ones who would get annexed anyway, the colonials should stay... at least until... 1600s? Or some other tribe-specific date...

After which they can all change to rebel scum maybe...

 

[unmerged(1815)]

We wanted EU2 because it was going to have A LOT of countries. Now that we have it, we want to remove some?
Sorry, I don't like the idea.

 

[Havard]

May I suggest the 1492 scenario?

I must admit it seems a bit odd wanting to remove nations (usually it is opposite), but whatever makes you happy.

 

[unmerged(4875)]

Re: Unimproved Grand Campaign

Originally posted by Sidney
If the IGC was about adding in more then I'm gonna try and figure out how to remove some states from a 1419 scenario for those of use running less than hefty machines.

The solution for this is already in the game. It's "The Age of Exploration" scenario. It basically starts where EU started - 1492. Spain is whole, France is whole, Turkey has their empire, Poland-Lithuania is one nation, etc.

There is no need for an "IGC", just play that scenario cause it's basically a Grand Campaign just starting in 1492, not 1419.

 

[Sidney]

See, I have no fears about eliminating states since the game really, IMHO, doesn't work for Benin or Cherokee nations. I'm not even sure that they aren't less realisitc than having no states since you can now, for example, face a pretty unififed response to European colonization which is silly. Plus, states like Zanj can cuase major havoc to the colonists-I ran the Portuguese on the east coast of Africa pretty easily. I think you'll find that the unified foreign states create less colonization and thsat without them you don't get wild levels of colonization.

Still, gaming concerns aside, I want to play Europe from 1419 (I've already figured out to play 1617 and things run just fine) and am a bit ticked off that the Shawnee and Zulu get in my way of that. I wish I had the horsepower to do so-- but I don't.

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Yozhik
So THAT's why EU2 is turtle-slow on my machine...

Fat trimming: there are annexation events in EU2 (Burgundy getting Brabant and Luxembourg for one)... can I suggest concentrating on those (I'd gladly help, for the reasons stated above)?

I would strongly advise against trimming the colonials, however. The presence of already existing tribes is what is going to slow down the colonial expansion big time (think religion and culture)... while it is a good idea to trim the ones who would get annexed anyway, the colonials should stay... at least until... 1600s? Or some other tribe-specific date...

After which they can all change to rebel scum maybe...

I think any early annexables will also help. I'm really hoping to do a minimum amount of cutting away. Do you want to come up with your list of removable states/annexation events to begin paring things down.

 

[Yozhik]

Plus, states like Zanj can cuase major havoc to the colonists-I ran the Portuguese on the east coast of Africa pretty easily.

Bingo! Challenge! I am sick of beating the game over and over (well, for me a successful colonization streak equates victory, even if I am #10 on the roster) on Very Hard/Furious...

I think any early annexables will also help. I'm really hoping to do a minimum amount of cutting away. Do you want to come up with your list of removable states/annexation events to begin paring things down.

*thinks*

Is it possible to turn a large number of small countries into rebel scum? If you do so, attack them and get the city, do you get to own it or do you have to somehow sue for peace with the scum?

 

[unmerged(4868)]

yes the 1492 campaign runs a bit faster.... since many of the smaller tiny nations (that existed in 1419) had already been swallowed up

the original poster here still a great idea.... to make a scenario (it's just an option) where people who only want to focus on the original european nations can do just that.... without having to worry about the possibility of China invading the papal states or a berzerk Malacca forcibly kicking the dutch out of all their asian island colonies

this is a good idea.... I may not play such a scenario all the time, but it would be a nice scenario option to have

 

[unmerged(4868)]

Originally posted by Sidney


I think any early annexables will also help. I'm really hoping to do a minimum amount of cutting away. Do you want to come up with your list of removable states/annexation events to begin paring things down.

this is doable.... for one thing you might start with those tiny one-province minors like Friesen.... and possibly dump them back into their original motherland (e.g. Spain/Austria, then Netherlands)

 

[unmerged(2238)]

I understand and support Sidney in cutting nations for better performance, for the folks with slower computers, but it is unfair to say that nations in Africa and SEA make things "hard" for colonists--they should! Africa was a very hard place to colonize, and there was never the kind of "send 100 home country" settlers in colonization that occured in NA and SA. It was a patron-client relation, at least until very late, in the 1800s or so. It's too bad that this relationship can't be made in this game--for example, what happened all along the W.African coast and other inhabited places in Africa would be best represented with a port and a trading post in an already existing native countries' territory, in essence a trading post on the coast that the native country allows the colonizer to have. Most portuguese TPs had to pay tribute to the local rulers, for example, and it was very rare they set up full colonies--and then it was almost always on islands off the coast, like Mozambique.

 

[unmerged(1815)]

The Portuguese paid tribute to the local African rulers? I didn't know that... maybe it can be represented in EU2 like this:
1) The trade income from the African coastal provinces goes to Tago (in this case) to represent the trade in the ports.
2) Military agreement and/or trade agreement, to represent Portuguese ports and trading rights.

 

[unmerged(2238)]

Originally posted by Pred
The Portuguese paid tribute to the local African rulers? I didn't know that... maybe it can be represented in EU2 like this:
1) The trade income from the African coastal provinces goes to Tago (in this case) to represent the trade in the ports.
2) Military agreement and/or trade agreement, to represent Portuguese ports and trading rights.

This was the professor I took basic African history from's speciality, so it's possible he was overstating it a bit--but the main point is that in the early stages (vast majority of EU2s period), trading posts were give and take, not just one way agreements. Especially the Portuguese were forced to work with local leaders and native strongmen, not just send in colonists and build up a colonies. In most places in Africa for most of EU period, European powers stayed on the coast in areas, mainly with agreements with local leaders. Africa was a brutal place to try to colonize, and it didn't happen until later than say, NA, mainly because of the sheer density of population and strength of the locals--remember, the Africans were not all wiped out by disease from the Europeans, and they had very densely populated communities.

 

[unmerged(1815)]

Hmm, I see... I don't know much about African history, so I'll take your word.

What do you think about my suggestion to reflect that in the game?

If it's not like that, we can start waiting for EU3.

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by John_Keats


This was the professor I took basic African history from's speciality, so it's possible he was overstating it a bit--but the main point is that in the early stages (vast majority of EU2s period), trading posts were give and take, not just one way agreements. Especially the Portuguese were forced to work with local leaders and native strongmen, not just send in colonists and build up a colonies. In most places in Africa for most of EU period, European powers stayed on the coast in areas, mainly with agreements with local leaders. Africa was a brutal place to try to colonize, and it didn't happen until later than say, NA, mainly because of the sheer density of population and strength of the locals--remember, the Africans were not all wiped out by disease from the Europeans, and they had very densely populated communities.

The African states made colonization hard but not in the way eU2 makes it. In EU2 I can't colonize those areas they control, period. in real life, I got trade concessions, set up offshort posts, etc. EU2 has no way of modeling this and so these states essentially become off limits short of the step of war whihc is rreally not what colonization was about in this time in Africa. So for me, in game terms, I have the choice of colonizing these areas and facing low coloinzation % and hostile natives- whihc makes the effort at least dicey or solid African states whihc don't allow colonization- whihc I don't like much. It a preference thing.

 

[unmerged(2238)]

Exactly what I was trying to say Sidney. There is no appropriate in game system for this. I would have liked to have seen an option to set up a colony/trade post in an already occupied native province. Perhaps the tradeoff would be COT value and trade goods for the colonizing nation/increased tech infra benefits for the native nation.

But like you said, it isn't in EU2. Nothing there to correctly simulate it.

 

[Sidney]

I may have to move this elsewhere since I'm guessing a lot of folks aren't reading this thread but here goes:

Unimproved Grand Campaign:
Mission: To provide an optinal scenario for players with lower end machine, in particular, who want to have acess to the 1419 scenario. The UGC belives the game's core competenece lies in modeling European state formation (and destruction) from 1419-1820 and thus intends to focus on European events and states at the expense of other regions of the world. While we will strive to maintain histiorical accuracy since we have perfomance concers there will be the elimination and consolidations of states across the globe. When we eliminate civilizations are don't deny thier value or existence merely their effect on the game (just so I don't get any pissy comments about how great civilization X is).

Below will be a list o' eliminable states. I will give my general reasoning for these states but I am cutting rather broadly. I appreciate any comments for why to keep certain states as well as any suggested additions to the list. Europe is my core set of knowledge so Africa pre-1800 isn't a strong suite nor is south east asia so I can really use help there.

On the chopping block in N. America:
Navaho- out in the middle of nowhere. No real value.
Dakota- out in the middle of nowhere. No real value.
Shawnee- Closer in but still I don't recall much interaction with the Shawnee nor that they were reallt a central state.
Lenape- troublesome and right in the middle of things. They prevnt settlement of Maryland whihc they did not at the time.
Cherokee- Really not this well organized and as beyond the Appalachians not really huge players at the time.
Creek- Don't recall them being big time players as a "state"

South America:
Mayans- Gone by the time the Euros arrive and in fast decline so we might as well accelerate this.
Chimu- gone by the time the Euros arrive as well.

Africa:
Mali- interior and not that important
Ashanti
Dahomey
Benin- All share the same issue, they stop European TP's on the gold, ivort, slave coasts short of war.
Songhai- Interior and irrelevant.
Kongo- Ditto
Zimbabwe- Ditto
Zanj- Stops colonization of the south east coast of Africa unless the Euros go to war.

Asia:
Brunei
Maksssar
Mataram
Atejh- all isolated on islands, don't affect gameplay in SE Asia and might have a an effect on colonization. Her'es I'm really not strong.

All the RoTW provinces will be unaffilaited. In cases where the native were troublesome the natives can be made hostile and plentyful.

Europe:
Orleansais- Pure game play, the Brits annex this one prove state in every game I've played and it hurts the French a lot. Make it part of France.
Siebenburgen- incoporate in Hungary since I don't think this was independent at anytime save in the minds of some folks in the 16-17th c when they imaged it to be Hungary.


Thoughts?

 

[unmerged(5605)]

Originally posted by Sidney
I may have to move this elsewhere since I'm guessing a lot of folks aren't reading this thread but here goes:

On the chopping block in N. America:
Navaho- out in the middle of nowhere. No real value.
Dakota- out in the middle of nowhere. No real value.
Shawnee- Closer in but still I don't recall much interaction with the Shawnee nor that they were reallt a central state.
Lenape- troublesome and right in the middle of things. They prevnt settlement of Maryland whihc they did not at the time.
Cherokee- Really not this well organized and as beyond the Appalachians not really huge players at the time.
Creek- Don't recall them being big time players as a "state"

South America:
Mayans- Gone by the time the Euros arrive and in fast decline so we might as well accelerate this.
Chimu- gone by the time the Euros arrive as well.

Africa:
Mali- interior and not that important
Ashanti
Dahomey
Benin- All share the same issue, they stop European TP's on the gold, ivort, slave coasts short of war.
Songhai- Interior and irrelevant.
Kongo- Ditto
Zimbabwe- Ditto
Zanj- Stops colonization of the south east coast of Africa unless the Euros go to war.

Asia:
Brunei
Maksssar
Mataram
Atejh- all isolated on islands, don't affect gameplay in SE Asia and might have a an effect on colonization. Her'es I'm really not strong.

Europe:
Orleansais- Pure game play, the Brits annex this one prove state in every game I've played and it hurts the French a lot. Make it part of France.
Siebenburgen- incoporate in Hungary since I don't think this was independent at anytime save in the minds of some folks in the 16-17th c when they imaged it to be Hungary.


Thoughts?

1. As to N. America, I wouldn't cut the Maya, the Cherokee, or the Creek, but that is just me. Maybe cut the Huron instead.

2. Give all Chimu lands to the Incas. They annexed them eventually anyway.

3. I would really leave some countries in the interior of west Africa. Maybe keep Mali or something as some large superstate. Also, make coastal Zanj Omani ports.

4. The island nations in Indonesia seem to be largely worthless for what you want. If you wanted to abstract history further, incorporate small states like pegu and mysore into surrounding nations.

5. There is a ton more consolidation you could do in Europe. Flandres and Geldre could easilly be cut, as people have said before. If you *really* want to improve gameplay for major European powers, start trimming the fat from the HRE in general. I think all those one province nothings have far less reason to exist than some of the colonial nations you want to cut. I would cut Cyprus too, as they don't seem to do anything but draw nations into silly wars at the start of the game.

6. You forgot the muslim world. I would definately cut the Kaliphate. It seems to do nothing but wait around to be conquered, and it was a vassal of the Timurids.

 

[unmerged(4868)]

hmmm I'm liking this idea more and more... just the thought of a game running faster is really appealing.

I suggest you drop the misnomer Unimproved Grand Campaign... and call it "Grand Campaign Lite" ---- zero fat, no cholesterol, low on calories!

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Suleyman
hmmm I'm liking this idea more and more... just the thought of a game running faster is really appealing.

I suggest you drop the misnomer Unimproved Grand Campaign... and call it "Grand Campaign Lite" ---- zero fat, no cholesterol, low on calories!

Sounds a might bit better, you're right.

I would have liked to get more discussion on my chopping block states but for some reason I can't start new threads in this forum anymore. If you want to paste that list into a new thread with our new name I'd kinda appreciate it.

I'll begin my editing work over this Thanksgiving and see how things go. I'll likely work in stages, eliminating the NA and SA indians first since I'm a bit more confident about their extraction. then I'll test for speed and only then start whacking the African and European states- although some of the Europe things I'd do anyways. Asia is where my doubts lie.