Krantz said:If you have msn you can add me, by that way you can get more help.
Or If I'am on very good mod, I can drive down to Malmö to help you!
But only if you have a nice looking sister in my age!
I hope you're not offended.
-
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.
I hope you're not offended.
Walter Model said:SunZyl, can you post an image of your very first province when it's done please
Okay, I'll try to remember that.
Any special reason for this odd request? BTW, The über-province Scandinavia is dead.
what about remaking the CK map for EU2?mandead said:Pretty much, if you would.
I just think it'd be great, because there are lots of great mods which would benefit no end from such a map. And at the end of the day, other than Portugal, by 1453 the idea of colonisation was pretty much a non-entity, and it's the end of both English dreams of a union with France, and Constantinople, so I think it's an excellent end date.
1066 is fairly obviously
maybe even less from asia so we have even more provs in europe?
The reason why I want to see your first province is to see how it looks
Could your map be just based throughout Europe though, so that means we can recreate the HYW easier, and when there were divisions of land IRL we can represent it.
Could your map be just based throughout Europe though, so that means we can recreate the HYW easier, and when there were divisions of land IRL we can represent it.
Walter Model said:The reason why I want to see your first province is to see how it looks
Could your map be just based throughout Europe though, so that means we can recreate the HYW easier, and when there were divisions of land IRL we can represent it.
It'll only Europe, basically. Some parts outside Europa, such as North Africa and the northern part of the Arabian Peninsula is, however, essential. Especially for Kingdom of Jerusalem. What would KoJ be without any Saldin to fight against?
And if you like bad graphic, you waon't be dissappointed.
It's mcolor we're talking about.
mandead, I've taken a short look on the monarchs and I indeed don't know anything about these people, basically. However, my only complain is that William the Conqueror should be slightly better.
SunZyl said:
Any reason, mate?
I think 5/5/6 is sufficient, to be honest. He was a fairly capable chap, but certainly nothing more. 6 is certainly good enough for his military if I'm honest. He won Hastings, fair enough. But let's not forget a few things. He was fighting an army that had already defeated a Viking army at Stamford Bridge, and quickly marched across the entire country just to fight William. The Anglosaxon army was depeted of supplies and morale, and yet would have still won the day had they not come down from their defensive position on the hill after hearing of William's supposed death.
William wasn't a particuarly great solder - he was by no means bad, however - but certainly wasn't in the same league as Edward I/III, Henry V, or of course Richard I.
In terms of diplomacy/admin, he was probably better. He carried out numberous long-lasting reforms, many of which exist in some form or another today. I might actually increase his admin to 7, but I think 5 and 6 for diplo and military respectively is fine
mandead said:Any reason, mate?
I think 5/5/6 is sufficient, to be honest. He was a fairly capable chap, but certainly nothing more. 6 is certainly good enough for his military if I'm honest. He won Hastings, fair enough. But let's not forget a few things. He was fighting an army that had already defeated a Viking army at Stamford Bridge, and quickly marched across the entire country just to fight William. The Anglosaxon army was depeted of supplies and morale, and yet would have still won the day had they not come down from their defensive position on the hill after hearing of William's supposed death.
William wasn't a particuarly great solder - he was by no means bad, however - but certainly wasn't in the same league as Edward I/III, Henry V, or of course Richard I.
In terms of diplomacy/admin, he was probably better. He carried out numberous long-lasting reforms, many of which exist in some form or another today. I might actually increase his admin to 7, but I think 5 and 6 for diplo and military respectively is fine
Seems resonable enough to me. Though some of those guys clearly needs to be a general as well.
SunZyl said:
Certainly. They're just monarchs, I haven't done leaders yet
I'll make the following leaders:
Canute
Harold II (Godwinson)
William I (can be a leader for Normandy first, and then unlocked by event for England if the Normands decide to invade)
Richard I
Edward I
Edward III
Richard II
Henry IV
Henry V
Edward IV
Richard III
Shall we call it Medieval Universalis, BTW?
That was my old name, as I say, before the project was abandoned. I think it's pretty good, and certainly gives an unbiased idea of the period
That was my old name, as I say, before the project was abandoned. I think it's pretty good, and certainly gives an unbiased idea of the period
mandead said:Shall we call it Medieval Universalis, BTW?
That was my old name, as I say, before the project was abandoned. I think it's pretty good, and certainly gives an unbiased idea of the period
Sounds good. Let's stick to it for now.
Excellent
I'll have a stab at some leaders for England, then.
May I reserve England & France? It's my only real knowledge of this time period, so I feel my efforts would be most justified here.
I'll have a stab at some leaders for England, then.
May I reserve England & France? It's my only real knowledge of this time period, so I feel my efforts would be most justified here.
Brilliant!
Is there any kingelections or similar that could've ended in another way with an alternative monarchs? Could you do such a thing?
Is there any kingelections or similar that could've ended in another way with an alternative monarchs? Could you do such a thing?
Swedishmonarchtable done. Just need to get the tags for Västra Götaland, Östra Götaland and Svealand and then I'm done!
1. First off, when you do the leaders, think of the thing that the leaders (this does not go for monarchs) should have the names they are best known under, ie. El Cid in Spain should be named El Cid Campeador and not Rodrigo Díaz Vivar and Richard I should probably be named Richard Lionheart.
2. Should we change it to Medievalia Universalis?
2. Should we change it to Medievalia Universalis?
SunZyl said:
Is Medievalia a real word, or just a fancy Latin-sounding take on Medieval? If it is an actual Latin word then by all means
Regarding monarch-leaders, I think it's easier to just use their actual names. Besides, not all of the monarchs I have listed have a 'nickname' - whereas we could use Richard the Lionheart or Edward Longshanks, I cannot think of any popular nicknames for some of the other kings. I think it'd be easier - both to fit in the name box, and to actually recognise which king the leader is - to stick with the conventional method. What do you think?
Also...
The problem here is of course the whole Norman invasion itself. The English had already beaten the Vikings at Stamford Bridge, so had the Normans not invaded, Harold II would have been unquestionable King of England. Also, as I said before, the battle of Hastings was a very close one anyway...
The problem is, if we let the player (or worse yet, the AI) choose to let the English win Hastings - and therefore repel the Norman invaders - then the entire lineage from 1066 to 1453 would be completely different, and almost all ties with the continent would be non-existant. England would be back to being a 'Danish playground,' as some historians have called it
Also, if a Norman player chooses not to invade in the first place, then the whole series of affairs are redundant anyway.
And there are numerous other people who could have taken the throne - assuming things with historically from 1066 onwards - especially during the Wars of the Roses.
It will be extremely difficult to script events, monarchs and leader for an ahistorical Anglosaxon England post-1066, so I don't know what we can do about that. I shall certainly think on it, though, because I think the thing about events is that players should have as much choice as possible
mandead said:Is Medievalia a real word, or just a fancy Latin-sounding take on Medieval? If it is an actual Latin word then by all means
Regarding monarch-leaders, I think it's easier to just use their actual names. Besides, not all of the monarchs I have listed have a 'nickname' - whereas we could use Richard the Lionheart or Edward Longshanks, I cannot think of any popular nicknames for some of the other kings. I think it'd be easier - both to fit in the name box, and to actually recognise which king the leader is - to stick with the conventional method. What do you think?
I don't know. I'll see if I can find what the real latin word is.
I still think the ones with nicknames that's more popular than their real names should be used. Take for an example the vanilla leader El Gran Capitán. Why not Gonzales de Córdoba, then? Just an example.