IGC 2.2 Discussion

[unmerged(2724)]

Just out of curiosity, how well were these capitals defended in reality? Is it more the fact that in reality an army would never make it to an enemy capital unless that country was truly defeated and raising the fortification levels is another way to make up for game deficencies?

 

[BiB]

It's defintely making up for the AI's deficiency. And it's very needed IMO. On the other hand how many times in history did those capitals actually get taken ?

 

[unmerged(1302)]

If someone wants an updated Persian and Uzbek monarch and leader files plus a set of historical events, let me know, I'll post them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


*raises hand*

Should I post them here or in a "leaders" thread? Or should I do it on an individual basis? This would require some changes to Province.csv, as income and "goods" have to be adjusted for many provinces.

Since we're on this, Uzbeks in IGC shown incorrectly, I normally drop Granada in favor of Qazaqs. I guess, this question is for Doomie, if he wants to make this kind of changes.

Crook

 

[ErrantOne]

Crook,

Make a new thread and explain what you have done and post a link to your files. I am mostly interested in the leaders/monarchs. Currently using the IGC+ mods for the economy stuff.



ErrantOne

 

[unmerged(2970)]

Originally posted by Demetrios
I second this! I wonder what the designers were thinking by having them Catholic to begin with. To make it easier for Poland and Hungary to diplo-annex them?

But why should they be diplo-annexed by Poland or Hungary? Just for fun of it?

I think the primary purpose of creating IGC was to present a more historically adequate scenario. Or am I wrong?

FYI, Romanian states [Moldova, Wallachia and Transilvania] were always in antagonism with Poland-Lithuania, Hungary and Turkey and only Russia tried several times to help them. Before EU time Transilvania was conquered by Hungary, Wallachia by Turkey and Basarabia province of Moldova was captured by Poland-Lithuania. Wallachia, nevertheless, remained independent but as a Turkish vassal. After the Stefan cel Mare "the Great" died, what was left of Moldova was conquered by Turks, but like Wallachia they still remained independent vassals ruled by Moldovan monarchs loyal to Ottoman Porta and later by Greek fanariots.

 

[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.

 

[unmerged(1302)]

Doomie,

I posted a new thread on Uzbek monarchs and leaders. You can get them from there, I'll post additions to Persia soon.

I will also add a set of historical events for those countries.

Crook

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by 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.

About the forts, personally I use level 3 forts anyway But I figured I'd start by getting them upgraded to level 2 first I don't mind seeing Paris, Flanders, Andalusia, Madrid and so on having level 3 forts at the start. It's not like those territories often were in enemy hands. And the time to strike as a minor is even before they upgrade tem to level 2 That tactic works very effective to get a few very good provinces early on. Ur right though that level 2 aren't that hard either but they're harder than level 1 forts and as I said I wouldn't mind level 3 ones

About the colonists, the concept behind it isn't really clear to anyone though via trial and error I did some changes and my tests (I play Austria anyway ) so far have been pretty good even though colonisation still starts too soon. So if anyone else wants to have a go ...

 

[unmerged(1689)]

Originally posted by Doomdark


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.

I understand, since I have to do a bit of programming myself as a Systems Administrator.
So, any chance of sending me an advance copy of the 1492.inc for IGC 2.2 so I can compare it to the 1520.inc and make any necessary changes to ensure their compatibility, as per your earlier post?

 

[ErrantOne]

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.
......
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...

Yes they are not that much harder to take, but what they can accomplish is making the opening years of an IGC (1492-1510s) harder for the human playing small minors to seize cots/caps with very small armies. A good example is alexandria and egypt. Putting lvl 2s there will not really slow turkey down too much. It really does slow down a player playing the nubians, hasfid or knights who just wants to swoop down with 10k infantry and steal the key provinces from turkey's blitz of the mameluks. Another example playing the uzbeks, if you DoW persia as soon as possible you can quickly sieze their capital as a way to gain maps, force an end to the war if it ever turns bad, or just quickly claim a couple provinces walked over to get there.

All the small forts do, is buy a bit more time for the AI to react what you are doing and prevent very small armies from taking those key provinces.

I would like to see every capital with a small, and some non-capital CoTs (spain's CoT and alexandria off the top of my head), if it's not too much trouble.



ErrantOne

PS I have not said thank you lately for all your efforts on the IGC...so Thank you Doomy.

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Doomdark

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

On which thread? On the Leaders of All Nations thread, I've posted a updated Baden and Burgundy monarch files, although you may not want to use historical monarchs for Burgundy if you're not wanting to mess with the Mighty Burgundy scenario. Speaking of which, is there any chance of a Burgundian Netherlands option? I made one rather easily (simply give them Franche-Comte and all the Low Country provinces, make the capital Brussels, give them CB shields on Bourgogne, Lorriane, and Picardie, and start them allied, RMed, and vassals of Austria), and it has worked quite well in many, many playtests (80% of the time it's diplo-annexed by Austria, the rest of the time it stays independent).

 

[BiB]

Why do u want an independent Burgundian Netherlands anyway ? They weren't really (I posted about this more elaborately in the other thread). Burgundy was a thing of the past and in 1492 the Netherlands were being nicely rebellious towards Maximilian I, who in the game is Austrian Habsburg monarch. Even now with Felipe I disappearing from the game Max I should defo have the Netherlands before 1520. From the end of the Burgundian time, the Netherlands have always been ruled by a Habsburg and in 1492 an Austrian Habsburg at that.

 

[WhiteHojo]

BiB'y - found this in another thread (bet you already saw it but maybe not) & thought it might be worth trying to incorporate or at least argue over:


Oh, and before I forget, about the Iroquois...
They really shouldn't be a starting power in EU at all. Most of the dates (which, in the absence of written records, are admittedly approximate) put the founding the "Iroquois League" of tribes in the middle of the 16th century, or about 50 - 60 years after EU starting date of 1492.
The major power in eastern North America at the time (1492) was the set of cultures known only as the "Mound Builders" and stretching from near the Carolina and Mississippi coasts up to western Ohio, Illinois, and Iowa. The population total may have reached 1,000,000 and populations in some of the mound cities may have approached European town size (10,000+ for Cahokia, for instance). They existed until the early 1500s, when smallpox spreading north from the Caribbean coast wiped out 90% of them and obliterated any political structure they may have had.
The other great population concentration in North America was on the Northwest Pacific coast (ahem) - right where I live, and what EU calls Olympia and Columbia provinces. because of the density of seafood and salmon in the rivers, even hunter-gatherers here could approach the numbers of the corn-raising populations in the midwest and east coast. They had lots of material goods, sophisticated wood, reed, and dye artistry, and one of the most warlike and aggressive tribes in America, the Haida.
Which is by way of saying that a major revision of North America in EU is overdue...

You could take the Iroquois tag and use it for these "MoundBuilders" or alternatly, remove the Iroq & use em for the Haida in the NA NW - not sure how that would affect the game at all though. Also, might be a prob'lm getting any historical leaders and monarchs for either. Plus the MoundBuilders apparently died out in the 1500s per this guy (Boris Badanov on the boards) but that doesn't stop Granada from being in the GC.

 

[BiB]

Shame u can't use that IRO tag otherwise because of the unit graphics. Otherwise North America could be represented by large hostile native populations (which actually makes colonising harder) and use the tag for another strong nation in Asia or so.

Thing is there's just this once tag for the whole of North America and I'm betting there were more than 1 half decent civ out there so it'll always be impossible to really go in depth in North America. Like adding more civs to South America or Africa also is quite impsossible tag wise. Which tribe then should be used for that tag is sommink else ... Maybe the Iroquois were used cuz they interacted most with European nations and seeing this after all is Europa Universalis. It may be a bit hardpressed to put in a civ that only lasts 10 years and gaming wise can't die out. Granada does.

 

[unmerged(1689)]

In the 1600 and 1700s (and late 1500s) the Iroquois were the major North American native power. They conquered or vassalized a number of tribes around them. They kept the Europeans from their core lands until the American Revolution, when the Iroquois split over supporting the British or the colonists and had their own civil war from which they never recovered.
Sure, they didn't exist in 1492. But the Mound Builders didn't exist after the mid 1500s. It is Europa U., so keep the nation that had the most contact with the Europeans. The AI never really encounters the Iroquois until the mid-late 1500's usually. It's only the aggressive human who will encounter them earlier, and if the human is being ahistorical by colonizing so early, then let's be historical by having the one Native nation that survived the time period of the game. (In the board game, they are actually unconquerable to show the difficulty the Europeans had with them and the terrain).

 

[ErrantOne]

(In the board game, they are actually unconquerable to show the difficulty the Europeans had with them and the terrain).

Since we only have one tag, I would not mind seeing them more powerful in north america (at least give them more starting troops). Would like to see them alot more aggressive too. Those TPs and underdefended colonies are just begging to be raided.


ErrantOne

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by BiB
Why do u want an independent Burgundian Netherlands anyway ? They weren't really (I posted about this more elaborately in the other thread). Burgundy was a thing of the past and in 1492 the Netherlands were being nicely rebellious towards Maximilian I, who in the game is Austrian Habsburg monarch. Even now with Felipe I disappearing from the game Max I should defo have the Netherlands before 1520. From the end of the Burgundian time, the Netherlands have always been ruled by a Habsburg and in 1492 an Austrian Habsburg at that.

Ah, the old argument resurfaces.

I say that since Philipp was technically the ruler and since Maximillian was only regent, they should be separate (they are tied in every conceiveable way though, with a +190 diplo rating). What I reallly like about it is when Austria does diplo-annex the Burgundian Netherlands (which they do about 80% of the time), all sorts of rebellions wrack the area for the next three decades (usually around 1505 - 1535), calming down just in time for the Dutch to rebel. A nice re-creation of trouble the Netherlands caused the Habsburgs. Plus it doesn't give the valuable Low Countries to any nation right at the start (other to Burgundy, of course), making the Austrians have to work hard to get it instead of getting it for free.

 

[BiB]

I just read another post from u about Lorraine and the Renees ("Province was united with Lorraine in the period we are talking about here, until it was absorbed by France in 1480. By the way, Gen, that list I sent you for Lorraine should probably be revised a bit; although technically Rene gave up the rulership of Lorraine to his sons, he was in reality the de facto ruler there until his death on 10 July 1480. He was still Count of Anjou. Maine, and Provence, as well as titular king of Naples while his sons were legally in charge of Lorriane, but Rene spent most of his time in Nancy and ruled the duchy with his sons as figureheads. So go from Rene I straight to Rene II."). I believe Max was in a somewhat similar position. In 1492 Max still de facto ruled the Netherlands (an under age son isn't actually reigning). I've also read quite a few times that even after Filips took over (because Max wanted it anyway) Max still had joint powers. He handed over control in 1493/4, so he had control in 1492, to Filips but he reserved the right of joint rule. After all in 1493 he was head of the house of Habsburg. Max letting Filips take over and also being the man who got the Netherlands in Habsburg hands in the first place and on top of that being someone who was quite active in Netherlands policies (seeing they rebelled against him ) and defending it against France shows it very much not was an independent country as u wanna make it out to be. Not saying it's not a special relation (then again that was the case for a lot of countries) but vassalage just is way too weak to portray the relation. In 1448 technically Burgundy was a vassal of the French King but were they really ? No. Karl V at one point was a vassal of the French King thru Flanders but was he really ? The vassal relation ship in the game hardly is well suited to every historical possibility.

Say if Filips had outlived his father as sons tend to do usually ? And that the marriages with the Spanish dynasty hadn't taken such a weird turn. We'd see a Habsburg complex without Spain. The game doesn't portray dynasties very well but Austria is the Austrian Habsburg dynasty and the Netherlands and all other possessions in the HRE were united under that one dynasty.

Frederik III still wasn't dead in 1493 either. Up till that point Maximilian really enjoyed himself in the Netherlands. Maximilan wasn't even HRE when the game starts. Actual control was Austrian Habsburg. Those white dudes on the map of the game I changed the text.csv from Austria to Habsburg Empire anyway.

U also posted a list of Habsburg governors for the Netherlands, those also show that already by 1492 Habsburg control was nicely in place in the Netherlands.

Mary wedded Max to get the Netherlands under Habsburg control and from the moment they married they did as any offspring would be another Habsburg. A vassalage leaves open the option for independence, united independence even (and it happens as I tried it ) which just is wrong. The Netherlands weren't striving for indepence, let alone go for it united. Even if u go that way, which u shouldn't, u have to have a tag for every provicne as nothing bar the Habsburgs bound those territories together. An independence movement shouldn't be there anyway as no one contested the rightful rule of the Habsburgs in the Netherlands. The fact alone that the Netherlands as a unit can become independent is bad enough to not pursue this option as it just would not happen.

Another thing in the game is that if u really wanna go all dynastical u have to split up nearly every major country (Poland, Spain, France, ... )and I don't see that happening. If u only do that for the Netherlands and Austria (which wouldn't be very consistent) u at least have to do it too for Spain (it's not like it was a united country ruled by one person in 1492). On the other hand there are also countries in the game ruled by the same person but who still are separate.

The tag is HAB not AUS, it's the Habsburg realm. The territories that belong to the House of Habsburg. The Netherlands were part of that. Maximilian I was the head of the House of Habsburg (seeing Fred III isn't in the game) and was firmly in control of it.

 

[ErrantOne]

Ok this is feature creap Doomy, but would it be possible to add these tax_stab settings to the config tool? Maybe call them "Choas really hurts".
Stability;Modifier(%)
3;20
2;0
1;-10
0;-40
-1;-60
-2;-90
-3;-100

These setting have been tested with a variety of countries from ENG down to very small minors (SIC, mameluks, uzbeks, thailand, knights, etc...) Adds alot to the when and where to DoW, IMO.

I understand if you dont want to mess with this too. Maybe for 2.3 in that case.


ErrantOne

 

[unmerged(3236)]

I like that chaos really hurts=)

I would like to add a new option:
few rebels
normal rebels
many rebels

In this time rebels was a problem during peace to even for not as large empiers as poland. I would like to have more rebels, it would make it harder to have a big empire.

I also like to add biggers forts to capitals and some other cots and similar.

It is hard to resist and step into castille when you have an army outside, and then when the AI offers toledo, andalusia and technolilitan it is hard to refuse.
I would like if you made the game harder.

You are making a scenario so we cant demand that you should rebuild the AI, so instead we demand that you designs the scenario to the AI.

I do not care that it is unhistorical that a few provinces has big capitals, it is historical that capitals is hard to take.

Many nation had a life guard for the monarch, to add some historical info to bigger forts you can say it is them=)



BiD made a long post...... strange......