IGC 2.2 Discussion

[Doomdark]

Before I release IGC 2.2 I would like to get some opinions on the changes I've made. As always, the guideline is for the IGC to reflect our (as expressed on this forum) best perception of historical reality.

New to IGC 2.2:

- Fortresses in Paris, Madrid and Lisabon raised to level 3 to prevent cheap map raids.
- Memel given to Prussia.
- USA 1492 is now Vinland all the way. New flag (green with white cross), leaders and monarchs. Vinland is now located in and around New Foundland. Dynamism tweaked.
- Scenario info corrected for the original playable nations.
- Scenario "mini-map" pictures corrected for Russia, Sweden and Denmark.
- Scenario text activated for Holland, Venice and Denmark.
- Austrian monarchs tweaked. Karl V now has diplo skill 8.
- Tambow given back to Kazan (Ryazan was too large, Kazan too weak.)
- China no longer knows of Dai Viet and Autthaya to prevent annexation. Silly but necessary.
- Tweaks to the 1520 scenario.

I would have liked to add a feature allowing you to set the base settler rate for all nations in the IGCConfig. Also, I would have liked to incorporate the 1520 scenario in the IGCConfig tool. However, these things will have to wait a while more.

Anything I forgot?

 

[Doomdark]

The trouble with dynamism for the Mughals is I don't think I can add more columns to colonists.csv (I think the rest are ignored by the game.)

 

[Doomdark]

So you know what that numbers in colonists.csv exactly mean?
Please share with us your knowledge

Heh, to be truthful, I don't know for sure, but I am operating under the simple hypothesis that they are percentages. It seems that normally 100 is 1 settler, 120 is 1 settler and 20% chance of 2 settlers, etc. There are other theories however; rest assured I will get to the bottom of the problem if I ever get around to implementing the feature in the Config tool.

 

[Doomdark]

Cornelius,

Wallachia and Moldova should definitely be Orthodox. I am a little surprised no one has noticed this before. Will fix.

ErrantOne, BiB, et al,

Level 2 fortresses in capitals/CoTs is no biggie IMO. The AI usually builds them pretty soon anyway, and they are still rather easy to take. However, level 3 fortresses are a useful play balance device. E.g. the fortresses in Savolaks and Nyland are not especially historical - they are there to prevent the perennial unhistorical annexation of those provinces by Russia too early in the game. There are probably other cases where level 3 fortresses would be appropriate. (In Norway and Portugal, perhaps...) However, their use is best avoided if there is a more historical measure available.

Now, personally I would not mind adding level 2 fortresses to major capitals and some CoTs, but I believe all it will accomplish is saving the affected countries a little gold...

Crook,

Updated leader/monarch files are always welcome. Don't hesitate to post them here or mail them directly to me.

Belisarius,

Believe me, I really, really want to add the 1520 scenario to the Config util, but the code was not structured for such a thing from the beginning, meaning it is a helluva lot of work. Be patient.

On the colonist issue; if anyone has the time to figure out the exact mechanism I would be very grateful to hear it.

 

[Doomdark]

Ok, here are my views on some of the favorite "issues" with the IGC:

New Spain

Although the historical chance of a "New Spain" appearing in the time-frame of EU is indeed low, it is not completely implausible, especially in the late period of the game. The fact that it did not happen does not mean it couldn't have - reasoning that could be applied to many other states that never existed in the EU era. It is unfortunate that the SAR tag is thus expended (God I wish there were more tags!), but I agree with Hartmann that a "New Spain" adds more to the game than Sardinia did. Thus New Spain stays in.

Granada

The way I see it, Granada is not in the game primarily to have its short little doomed war with Spain and be annexed in 1492, but to exist as a possible revolter. I love revolters. They add so much spice to the game without being unbalancing.

Dynastical Unions

We all know it; EU does not model this type of union, and the approach it takes is far more historical than the alternative (splitting up entities like Denmark-Norway, Poland-Lithuania, and Castille-Aragon-Catalunya). However, I am not averse to providing such options in the IGC Config.

Fantasy Options

I love them, and I don't see the point in arguing how correct they are. Burgundy is pure fantasy, just as Vinland is, but they only get better by having some kind of real historical background. Next in line among the bigger fantasy options is of course Byzantium.

 

[Doomdark]

Huszics,

Will fix!

BiB,

At least Brazil would also be a welcome revolter. That way, there would be one possible revolter for North, Middle and South America respectively. But there are no more tags, so...

 

[Doomdark]

Cornelius,

The effects of the Time of Troubles were reduced with IGC 2.1, but many people still find them too severe. (Others like them a lot; including me.)

Consider history: Russia was in such an uproar that Poland managed to put a puppet Czar on her throne, Sweden had wide support to do likewise and when that failed, almost succeeded in tearing Novgorod from the Muscovite realm. Big hordes of rebels marched through the land, led by various pretenders such as the two false Dimitris. In the end, it was only the antagonism between Sweden and Poland that saved Russia from becoming a plaything of foreign nations for a long time to come.

Now, since EU has chosen a model with strictly historical rulers, it follows that unrest and conflict resulting from dynastic strife should also be modeled in the game.

 

[Doomdark]

I thought about that, and it certainly wouldn't be wrong, but I think a couple of rebellions in the region can only be historical.

 

[Doomdark]

Tsk tsk, you can always leave Skåne for last...

 

[Doomdark]

Isn't Gotland way easier to leave as last anyway ?

Well it is a matter of taste... With time, the AI tends to leave a huge garrison on Gotland, getting bigger all the time until it starts dying of attrition. It can be a bitch to throw out the Danes when they've got 60k troops there. It is much more convenient to take Gotland early IMO.

On the other hand, Skåne is a more valuable province than Gotland.

 

[Doomdark]

Cornelius,

If it was possible I would do it in five minutes. However, that type of event does not work in the Historical Events file. Sorry.

 

[Doomdark]

I am not willing to bet my life on this, but I do believe that the religious conversion event does not work correctly in the historical events monarchs file. Most types of events don't, after all.

 

[Doomdark]

All new versions of the IGC are always to be found at Europa Ascendant