Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

IGC 1.8 and Real EU 2.0

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.
State Machine

State Machine

MOS FET
5 Badges
Feb 8, 2001
6.616
24
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II
Hartmann & Laurent Favre

Some problems with IGC alone, Real EU 2.0 alone, and with the combination.

1) Transylvania is missing in the IGC 1.8 1492_IGCx.inc files. It is there in IGC 1.7, and is documented to be there. Problem?

2) 1492o.inc for Real EU 2.0 has many incorrect(I forget the word) things like graves. For example Armée is Arm,e.

3) As indicated by Hartmann in the Real EU 2.0 thread, 1492_IGC.inc and 1492o.inc are different. Quite different as 1492o.inc has all of Laurent's economic modifications (and Transylvania). I was (and will later) going to create a combination of the two, but, alas, my Windiff program is misbehaving and won't combine the two files. If it were not for the diacratics (I think that is the right word), changing 1492o.inc is very minor. The differences aside from the economic changes seem to be:
- Alliance number 4 has RUS CRI ROY PSK instead of RUS CRI GRA PSK as it's members in 1492_IGCx.inc
- POL and PRU have a dyansticalliance instead of vassalization in 1492_IGCx.inc
- RUS and GRA instead of RUS and ROY and has a dynastic alliance instead of vassalization in 1492_IGCx.inc
- RUS and PSK have a dyanisticalliance instead of vassalization in 1492_IGCx.inc
- there is a commented out alliance (number 110) in 1492_IGCx.inc
I have not yet checked to see if all of the IGC 1.8 corrections (like typos) are in 1492o.inc.

4) Version indication. Both the IGC 1.8 and Real EU 2.0 have # IGC 1.7./'official' version at the top instead of their real versions.

5) Real EU 2.0 install. Laurent, it is quite easy to create the zip file so that if you unzip into your EU directory everything goes to the correct directory, rather than having to unzip certain files to certain directories. I'd be happy to create it and send it to you.

6) Future releases. I see from Hartmann's post on the matter that he is preferring keeping Real EU x.x as an add on on top of IGC, probably available in the IGC download, though. The configuration management (already, probably) will be a problem (i.e. nightmare), maintaining all these different .inc files. There are professional (and freeware/shareware) tools for managing multiple versions of things. They are quite useful for testing, too. I would be happy to advise.

Fabulous work to all involved, by the way!
 
Originally posted by State Machine
Hartmann & Laurent Favre

Some problems with IGC alone, Real EU 2.0 alone, and with the combination.

1) Transylvania is missing in the IGC 1.8 1492_IGCx.inc files. It is there in IGC 1.7, and is documented to be there. Problem?

2) 1492o.inc for Real EU 2.0 has many incorrect(I forget the word) things like graves. For example Armée is Arm,e.

3) As indicated by Hartmann in the Real EU 2.0 thread, 1492_IGC.inc and 1492o.inc are different. Quite different as 1492o.inc has all of Laurent's economic modifications (and Transylvania). I was (and will later) going to create a combination of the two, but, alas, my Windiff program is misbehaving and won't combine the two files. If it were not for the diacratics (I think that is the right word), changing 1492o.inc is very minor. The differences aside from the economic changes seem to be:
- Alliance number 4 has RUS CRI ROY PSK instead of RUS CRI GRA PSK as it's members in 1492_IGCx.inc
- POL and PRU have a dyansticalliance instead of vassalization in 1492_IGCx.inc
- RUS and GRA instead of RUS and ROY and has a dynastic alliance instead of vassalization in 1492_IGCx.inc
- RUS and PSK have a dyanisticalliance instead of vassalization in 1492_IGCx.inc
- there is a commented out alliance (number 110) in 1492_IGCx.inc
I have not yet checked to see if all of the IGC 1.8 corrections (like typos) are in 1492o.inc.

4) Version indication. Both the IGC 1.8 and Real EU 2.0 have # IGC 1.7./'official' version at the top instead of their real versions.

5) Real EU 2.0 install. Laurent, it is quite easy to create the zip file so that if you unzip into your EU directory everything goes to the correct directory, rather than having to unzip certain files to certain directories. I'd be happy to create it and send it to you.

6) Future releases. I see from Hartmann's post on the matter that he is preferring keeping Real EU x.x as an add on on top of IGC, probably available in the IGC download, though. The configuration management (already, probably) will be a problem (i.e. nightmare), maintaining all these different .inc files. There are professional (and freeware/shareware) tools for managing multiple versions of things. They are quite useful for testing, too. I would be happy to advise.

Fabulous work to all involved, by the way!
Click to expand...

1) Translylvania in the iGC is revolter at start and existing as a vassal of Hungary in my 1492o. it shouldn't create any problem

2) I noticed. it seems to be the same in IGC and Eu don't handle graves

3) I should advice to use my 1492o for now as it stands. when I will have achieved the fine tuning, I will write myself all the versions needed for the IGC 1.08 and higher. What I need for now is feedback on the Rversion 3.0 I just posted to find eventual problems.I posted 3.0 because it seems to work very good and I don't plan to release a new version until the end of the next week.

5) I know. I will write a Real readme, and all these things when I will have achieved to tweak the files. Thanks for your help: I will remember ;)

6) would be interesting indeed. Once again, thanks.
 
I am downloading 3.0 and will test with it. Can't say the testing will be very good as I might just play a game instead of watching.

Cheers
 
BiB,

I have a scenario file that is the union of IGC 1.8 and Real EU 3.0. I can send it to you if you want. It is 2AM for me - I'll be up for another hour or so.
 
1) Transylvania is missing in the IGC 1.8 1492_IGCx.inc files. It is there in IGC 1.7, and is documented to be there. Problem?

As Laurent said, it´s a revolter in the IGC (and it will stay this way as it came into existance only later).

- Alliance number 4 has RUS CRI ROY PSK instead of RUS CRI GRA PSK as it's members in 1492_IGCx.inc

Effect is the same: ROY is now Ryazan, GRA is now Serbia. The reason is, that ROY seems not to be inclined to revolt outside England.

- POL and PRU have a dyansticalliance instead of vassalization in 1492_IGCx.inc

At the moment, this is the only way to prevent diploannexation of PRU in 1502. Will change this with EU 1.09 hopefully.

- RUS and GRA instead of RUS and ROY and has a dynastic alliance instead of vassalization in 1492_IGCx.inc
- RUS and PSK have a dyanisticalliance instead of vassalization in 1492_IGCx.inc

This was done to move diploannexation of Pskov and Ryazan from 1502 to historical dates (1510 and 1515). There are some changes in diplomaticmatrix and historical events to achieve this. Works really good! Now using 1492o.inc screws this all up again...

- there is a commented out alliance (number 110) in 1492_IGCx.inc

Couldn´t make up my mind...

4) Version indication. Both the IGC 1.8 and Real EU 2.0 have # IGC 1.7./'official' version at the top instead of their real versions.

Typo, sheesh....

6) Future releases. I see from Hartmann's post on the matter that he is preferring keeping Real EU x.x as an add on on top of IGC, probably available in the IGC download, though. The configuration management (already, probably) will be a problem (i.e. nightmare), maintaining all these different .inc files. There are professional (and freeware/shareware) tools for managing multiple versions of things. They are quite useful for testing, too. I would be happy to advise.

Really good idea, and we are already thinking about that. I´m sure we will do something to make installation easier. At the moment, though, there´s so much more important things...

Seeing, that Laurent also makes changes to scenario design (like Transylvania) makes it even more obligatory to keep IGC and REAL EU seperate. Also we have subtle but nevertheless important differences in our 'design philosophies' (which are not easy to explain here in short). I just say this: Laurent´s approach is fully 'developmental', e.g. he has absolutely no problems in scaling down monarchs for minors, if this helps him to make the development of a hands off game more historical. The IGC on the other hand tries to achieve historical accuracy concerning the starting situation, monarch/leader abilities etc. and then within this given frame to find measures encouraging historical development. That´s why some of the methods Laurent applies are not available to the IGC team.

Cheers, Hartmann
 
4) Version indication. Both the IGC 1.8 and Real EU 2.0 have # IGC 1.7./'official' version at the top instead of their real versions.

Typo, sheesh....
Click to expand...

I know, I know. It's just as a software developer in the commercial world, little picky things like this can cause untold heartache, so I am a little paranoid.

Most of my observations about what is in IGC 1.8 versus Real EU 2. (now 3.0) were more in the form of validation - are my observations correct? So it seems.

The Transylvania, thing, though, I am sure that in IGC 1.7 it was a seperate country from the beginning (and per your 1.7 and 1.8 FAQ), and is in Favre's Real EU, so I'm just questioning whether the IGC release is, in fact, correct. It matters not to me whether it is a revolter or not. Picky, again.

Seeing, that Laurent also makes changes to scenario design (like Transylvania) makes it even more obligatory to keep IGC and REAL EU seperate. Also we have subtle but nevertheless important differences in our 'design philosophies' (which are not easy to explain here in short). I just say this: Laurent´s approach is fully 'developmental', e.g. he has absolutely no problems in scaling down monarchs for minors, if this helps him to make the development of a hands off game more historical. The IGC on the other hand tries to achieve historical accuracy concerning the starting situation, monarch/leader abilities etc. and then within this given frame to find measures encouraging historical development. That´s why some of the methods Laurent applies are not available to the IGC team.
Click to expand...

I quite agree. I very much understand and appreciate both viewpoints. If you will forgive the analogy, you (the IGC team), are the Orthodoxy, while Laurent is a heretic.

Maybe not so good an analogy after all, but I want to see historically viable development, and both approaches are addressing part of the issue.

6) Future releases. I see from Hartmann's post on the matter that he is preferring keeping Real EU x.x as an add on on top of IGC, probably available in the IGC download, though. The configuration management (already, probably) will be a problem (i.e. nightmare), maintaining all these different .inc files. There are professional (and freeware/shareware) tools for managing multiple versions of things. They are quite useful for testing, too. I would be happy to advise.

Really good idea, and we are already thinking about that. I´m sure we will do something to make installation easier. At the moment, though, there´s so much more important things...
Click to expand...

As it happens, I will be very available starting 16 of April, and could help with some 'infrastructure' things, if you want.

Oops I seem to have missed u.
Click to expand...
BiB - still up (4AM). Not even playing EU! I do have a combined 1.8 IGC and Real EU 3.0 file, but it is only a few minutes of editing to get them in synch. If you ignore the Transylvania bit, the only thing to change in Real EU 3.0 (1492o.inc) to reflect IGC 1.8 is the three or four alliances mentioned in my first post, reflecting the IGC changes in regard to Prussia, Ryazan, etc. Just a couple of minutes of editing and verification required.

Cheers, all.
 
Last edited:
@State Machine: Thanks for understanding. :) I don´t mind to be addressed as representing the 'orthodoxy', but it left me smiling when I considered, that at the start the IGC team were the 'heretics' with respect to Greven et al. :) Well, seems like this is how it always goes: the revoluzzers of old become the establishment later... ;)

At the moment I have only an IGC 1.7(beta3) available, but there the readme already says:

- Replaced Provence with Transylvania as a revolter (starting 1526) including monarchs and leaders.

Anyway, I *know* that I did implement them as a revolter only (I still remember the testing round, where I got exited, when Transylvania showed up after Hungary was soundly beaten by the Turks and the map looked exactly like in 1600):

http://homer.span.ch/~spaw1241/big1600.htm

Cheers, Hartmann
 
Originally posted by Hartmann
@State Machine: Thanks for understanding. :) I don´t mind to be addressed as representing the 'orthodoxy', but it left me smiling when I considered, that at the start the IGC team were the 'heretics' with respect to Greven et al. :) Well, seems like this is how it always goes: the revoluzzers of old become the establishment later... ;)

At the moment I have only an IGC 1.7(beta3) available, but there the readme already says:

- Replaced Provence with Transylvania as a revolter (starting 1526) including monarchs and leaders.

Anyway, I *know* that I did implement them as a revolter only (I still remember the testing round, where I got exited, when Transylvania showed up after Hungary was soundly beaten by the Turks and the map looked exactly like in 1600):

http://homer.span.ch/~spaw1241/big1600.htm

Cheers, Hartmann
Click to expand...

i confirm i did the change for transylvania.

About peaceful annexion: they are without changes for Russia a bit later in EU 3.0. I didn't check the dates, but certainly close to your new ones. AI has less money to spend in diplomacy.
By the contrary, I did that for naples because Spain was annexing her too soon.

yes, i'm an heretic. I will pursue adaptation to IGC though ( and even with Transylvania as revolter :) ) because the 2 works are IMO going into the same direction: get more realism in EU. I would prefer another solution than lowering monarch skills, I hope a next patch will address that. But giving the same rating currently to a baden monarch and louis XIV isn't IMHO realist, as it gives to baden monarch a much more essential influence.
 
Gads, still up at 6:00AM. (GMT -6?). The glory of not having a job (at the moment).

I only started reading posts on the forum in January, so I probably missed the 'Wars of Religion'.

I read a fantastic essay once on music that was totally flawed, but brilliant. [aside - music of all sorts is probably my greatest love, even more than games]. The thesis was that Jazz had replaced religion as the thing that bonds society together [garbage, even though my favorite music is Jazz]. But as part of the argument, was the description of how every movement in Jazz was first heretical, challenging the existing orthodoxy, then becoming the orthodoxy, with appropriate acolytes and so on (music critics, etc.), and then becoming, well, irrelevant (until post-modernism).

In that context, IGC will become... :)

Seriously, though, all historical/war games have abstractions. Regardless of how they are named or expressed, they are abstractions. Monarchs, leaders, etc. have relative values - they should be consistent to the known reality (i.e. IGC). Meanwhile the economic abstractions of the game system are distorted by these values. That said, I have no practical solution. The work of IGC, and Laurent Favre immensely add to the game, so all I can do is thank your collective efforts and wish to help in any way possible.
 
But giving the same rating currently to a baden monarch and louis XIV isn't IMHO realist, as it gives to
baden monarch a much more essential influence.

This is an example of monarchs still taken over from the original GC. I agree that minor monarch ratings (especially for totally fictional monarchs) in the original GC are often much too high. Of course, we will address this issue later. It´s only that we don´t want to *generally* penalize the stats of minor monarchs, even in cases where they were known to be good. You recently mentioned Gustav Adolf, who maybe would have been rated lower if in charge of a minor like Bavaria. This is true, but it shows that this kind of 'perceptual' distortion is already *favoring* major countries. So if a certain monarch of a minor nevertheless became known as an able ruler, he most probably really was. :) And shouldn´t be penalized. Like You, I also hope, that the next patch will help us reaching more adequate tech developments without having to resort to penalizing minor monarchs across the board.

Hartmann
 
But giving the same rating currently to a baden monarch and louis XIV isn't IMHO realist, as it gives to
baden monarch a much more essential influence.

A thought on analyzing and setting Monarch ratings. Apply a bell curve distribution to the values. The absolute worst monarchs should be in the lowest 15% of qualitative values, the greatest, the highest 15%, and the rest in the middle. The middle strata could, hopefully, be set at a point to not distort tech development for minors.

Not sure how practical this is with the limited range of values that can be set, and in regards to random monarchs, but it would normalize the settings.
 
Laurent - I do have a version of the Real EU zip file that properly unpacks into the EU directory structure if you want it.
 
Originally posted by State Machine



BiB - still up (4AM). Not even playing EU! I do have a combined 1.8 IGC and Real EU 3.0 file, but it is only a few minutes of editing to get them in synch. If you ignore the Transylvania bit, the only thing to change in Real EU 3.0 (1492o.inc) to reflect IGC 1.8 is the three or four alliances mentioned in my first post, reflecting the IGC changes in regard to Prussia, Ryazan, etc. Just a couple of minutes of editing and verification required.
Click to expand...

I have a weird schedule ;) Been messing with the tax stab.
 
State Machine...

Assuming ceteris paribus that the distribution of monarch effectiveness is equivalent between the collection of major versus minor nations, that is a workable solution.

Can that argument be sustained? If so, then we could simply estimate these distributions now and then adjust major/minor leaders by some constant to equate them. But I don't know if in fact it is reasonable to assume that the overall distributions were centered exactly the same or distributed precisely this way (equivalent and normal).
 
Given the amount of inbreeding between a number of states, you might think that the distribution should be slanted toward lower values. :)

Perhaps I'll look through the relevant files (can't promise) and see what the distribution is.

Another thought, is that it may not matter what the actual distribution is, as long as the values set are consistent with each other (to ensure 'historical accuracy' in the ratings), and the values used don't distort the tech system.
 
Last edited:
Very funny !!

Given the amount of inbreeding between a number of states, you might think that the distribution should be slanted toward lower values.
Click to expand...

The other alternative to slowing the minors down may be to just increase their tech costs relative to majors. The readme for Real 2.0 reads:

I'In order to avoid small nations being the most advanced in research, their research costs have been raised. They should now be roughly at the same level than major nations. To achieve this , monarch values have been lowered.'

I don't think this is necessarily the best or most efficient approach. Rather, just upping the tech costs for minors should do it and that way the variance in MOnarch effects (which are very interesting and add a twist to the game) would be kept intact. My suggestion would be to avoid restricting ranges in monarch effects and allowing the tech costs to do this. This allows for differences between minors to be reflected better - removing extreme values for minors on monarch values effectively makes for more vanilla play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back