IGC 1520 Scenario from Belisarius

[unmerged(1689)]

Originally posted by Yasko
Ok, downloaded the latest ICG and patch 1.09 its working now, no crashes at 1 jan 1535 . Just a question, if i use the ICG Config tool and change the tax income to "very low", does that effect ICG 1520?

Doh! I forgot. Thanks, Bib. Any changes to the other files of the IGC/EU will of course affect the 1520 scenario. It is just that the 1520 cannot be configured yet with the scenario options like Ireland or the USA starting as nations. That reminds me, I will write those up for future use for the 1520 scenario. Anyone have some other suggestions for the open tags in the 1520 scenario, besides of course Kurland?

 

[unmerged(1689)]

Originally posted by BiB
Shouldn't Austria for example not also have a CB against the Turks?

Well, they have CB shields on all the Hungarian provinces in 1520. If Turkey captures any of those, then Austria will have a CB vs Turkey.

 

[BiB]

I know. But driving the infidel Turk out of Europe is gonna cost a lot of stability while Turkeys gets CBs for the fun of it.

 

[unmerged(3466)]

Re: Kurdistan

Originally posted by Belisarius


I have seen conflicting maps on this province's ownership in 1520. Selim's armies advanced farther into Persia than they actually conquered during that time. Do you have something definite on that province?

Selim I had driven the Persians from Kurdistan by 1520, so I'd definitely give it to the Turks. Farther South was not taken until later (Baghdad in 1534, and Basra in 1546). Farther East is where they advanced beyond their ability to control the territory (Tabriz).

Just a quick search, but see - http://numerus.ling.uu.se/~kamalk/caldiran.html

Many of these rapid early victories were due to both Safavid and Mamluke lack of artillery (most notably, the battles of Chaldiran [1514] & al-Raydaniyya [1517], respectively). When the Persians finally stopped reeling and re-equipped themselves (1602), it was a much different story.


- Raife

 

[unmerged(1689)]

Originally posted by BiB
I know. But driving the infidel Turk out of Europe is gonna cost a lot of stability while Turkeys gets CBs for the fun of it.

Well, the Turks ended up at the end of the game period basically only controlling what they started with in Europe (plus Bosnia) so the Europeans were successful. In game terms, they would have had CB in those wars to drive them back.
But I agree that the Turks have too many CBs. Not for war, but for revolts. Giving them a few less national provinces would give them more of a chance of their historical revolts.

 

[BiB]

Or Russia for that matter

 

[unmerged(1689)]

My apologies, I found a potential crash bug in the 1520 scenario. Again, I will edit it for the next IGC update, but please feel free to fix it for yourselves.
The "2nd Polish Army", id = 676 is in 294' (yes, including the '). This puts it in PTI, so edit its location to Poltava (461 - not back to 294).
Some other minor edits:
The Swedish unit "Nylands Brigad" id = 535 should be placed in province 273 Savolaks.
The Russian unit "Swedish Border Army" id = 422 should be placed in 266 Karelia.

 

[USGrant]

The concept of this scenario (moving the start date a little to enhance historicity) got me thinking about the other end. I began to wonder about moving the end forward. A little reading convinced me that 1763, after the 7 Years War, might make a better end date than 1792. As I see it this would have a few playability and historicity advantages:

1. The game cannot simulate the outcome of the 7YW in America - England would have to pick up (from memory) about 20 colonies at once to simulate the Treaty of Paris.
2. By 1763 Prussia was truely a major power, which the game cannot simulate very well.
3. By the last 30 years of the game most players have runaway economies and have or are close to maxing out "research", so why play then?
4. By the late 18th Century that game systems get a little wonky with too many unseigable forts and too much money floating around.
5. The 1520 scenario with a 1763 end date shortens the GC by 19%, meaning you can play 19% more GCs

In summary, I think playing 1520 to 1763 will sharpen the focus of the game and reduce some complaints about the late game. It should make things more challenging for a player versus the AI, and arguably improve historicity. I'll try this when I complete my current GC.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks,

USGrant

 

[unmerged(1689)]

Re: Re: Kurdistan

Originally posted by Raife

Selim I had driven the Persians from Kurdistan by 1520, so I'd definitely give it to the Turks. Farther South was not taken until later (Baghdad in 1534, and Basra in 1546). Farther East is where they advanced beyond their ability to control the territory (Tabriz).
Just a quick search, but see - http://numerus.ling.uu.se/~kamalk/caldiran.html
- Raife

The problem lies in the naming of the provinces here. Kurdistan was larger than the one province name in EU. Nuyssaybin (486) was actually more of Kurdistan than Kurdistan in EU, and the Turks have been given that in the 1520 scenario.
Also on that idea, the Turks only controlled a small slice of Kirkuk (488), so I need to give that back to the Persians. Here's a link that shows what they controlled in 1520. http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~rs143/ottosul.jpg
Algeria is listed as controlled on the map, but it was only nominally a vassal, with many minor cities still basically independent. Only Algiers at this time actually recognized Ottoman rule. The rest took a couple of decades.
On the subject of Spanish/Turkish conflict in North Africa in the 1500s - that was mainly Spain's doing. For some reason they decided they wanted to control the coast and attacked and conquered cities in the Morocco, Algiers, Tunisa, and Tripoli and other provinces. Oran was the only one they ended up controlling into the 1700s when the Turks came to protect their fellow Islamic allies (although some were controlled for decades). With Algeria having a CB vs. Spain and being allied to Turkey, it may be enough.