Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

IGC 2.2 Discussion

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.
Show only dev responses
Originally posted by BiB

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).
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, I do play with separated Castile and Aragon in my homemade modifications to the IGC. :D

I like to play with a Burgundian Netherlands. I think it has at least some basis in history and works well enough to recommend it to other people. I furthermore believe it would make a fine option for the IGC (on par with the other options for the Netherlands already in existence). Surely that's what the Scenario Forum is all about - taking differing views on history and playing around with them to see what the end result could be.
 
Which is quite inconsistent IMO. If u break up Spain u must do so too for other nations. There hardly were much centralised big powerful nation states in 1492. Why only weaken Spain when other countries who were weaker too can remain strong ?
And after all it is not even an option in the IGC so why should the Netherlands thingie be ? Felipe I isn't even to be seen in the IGC.

Just because it's an IGC option, doesn't make it right :D I mean divided Austrian/Spanish Netherlands in 1492 ? USA in 1492 ? That's all pure unhistorical fantasy :D This one is even better than that divided thingie but it still doesn't even come close to reflecting the actual situation. Xure, actual possession isn't the correct term (it isn't for a lot of situations in the game) either, if u wanna get real technical, but it comes way closer than an independent vassal idea.

An independent Netherlands in 1492, even as a vassal, is a fantasy option :D U can take a lot of fractions from history, give it a slight twitch and create a whole new situation. Which is fine if ur into that sort of stuff but it remains fantasy or alternate history. I did so for my Flanders scenario. It has a somewhat historical basis but it remains fantasy.

The first born son of the Duke of Burgundy usually got as title count of Charolais. Did that make Charolais suddenly less part of the Burgundian realm ? Who would u suspect had the final word when it came to Charolais ?

Isn't it also so that later on the first born son of the Austrian Habsburg Emperor got as title King of Bohemia (or sommink like that :D). That didn't suddenly make Bohemia independent or seriously alter the power relations in the House of Habsburg.

Historically, technically and officially the Netherlands were independent from 1598 to 1621. But were they really ? No way.
Now u can make a scenario in which they are. It'd have a slight historical basis and could be nicely justified if u want but it would be pure fantasy.

Now with the USA option turning the Vinland way it also has a slight historical basis but is it anything really but fantasy ?

Some people enjoy that option. I don't at all (though I played Burgundy the Mighty and my Flanders scenario :D) If they wanna play fantasy options, they should just do whatever they like but it should remain to be called fantasy :)
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Originally posted by 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.

>>>> How about Brazil, Québec and so then ? Feels a bit silly to just have New Spain there (and the USA) while the rest can just be mistreated :D I don't have an objections against New Spain per se, I defo agree that it could have happened (I mean Cortes and Pizzaro ruled New Spain and Peru as if they were kings) but it's so silly to have that vast continent and only have the 2 such types of revolters while there are many more colonisers :D Right now it seems such a half arsed split between some colonial revolters and some Italian revolters for example.

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.

>>>> Revolters are defo nice. A real historic islamic revolter full nation popping up in Iberia again, I somehow doubt. I'd use the tag for another islam country and get a strong Catalunyan revolters in, sommink one could expect quite a bit more than a full blown islamic revival independence movement in Spain itself.

The Aztecs can also reform thru revolts but really, how likely was that ? A New Spain revolter in such a case is way more realistic. And a Peru one instead of Incas.

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.

>>>> Apart from the fact u could quite soon run out of tags, it also wouldn't be very historically correct or consistent to have a split up Spain but provide a unified France for example. Same as for the colonial revolters. If u get one u should be fair and consistent and go all the way for them. If u split one country trying to reflect it's dynastical ties u also should do so for others. Not to mention over the 300 years of the game there was a movement of getting more centralised stronger states (mostly :D). Chopping it all up in the beginning could make for soem weird, if u want interesting results, but resembling history it prolly wouldn't very much do.

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.

>>>> One shouldn't argue about the correctness of fantasy options as they simply aren't :D That's why they're called fantasy options ;) I never said they should go, defo not, I just stated that they are just that : fantasy options, despite nice historical backgrounds :D
Click to expand...
 
I just noticed yesterday that you have missed to fix P-L initial troop placement.

They still have 55k troops in a province that only supports 35k during winter on the russian border (belogrod ?). Split it or move it down to ukraine (?) that has room for them.
 
Its a shame we doesnt have more tags=(
 
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... :(
 
Dunno, it'd take a lot of creativity but maybe a few could be found somewhere. For example take out Burgundy as a revolter in the regular GC (but keep it for the fantasy option, I believe that is possible ?) and use it for a catholic revolter in South America. Duno how that igcconfig actually works in that way though. Though gettings tags is hard as everyone here has its own fave revolters. One likes them in the colonies, one likes Italian ones, another is more interested in Asia ...

Most obvious revolter in the south would be Peru though. Portugal sadly hardly ever gets to population colonisation in Brazil but if Spain conquers the Inca, there's a very solid base there for a nation.

France in the north also wasn't that populous compared to Peru, Mexico and the USA but it'd also be nice :D

Not that I'd see much of them. In all my games I've never seen the USA or NEw Spain but have seen Sardinia twice (before it was taken out of xure ;)) so in that way Sardinia added more to my games than they ever did ;)
 
Hmmm, actually i never saw US, but New Spain appear almost everytime when Spain gets in a long war ( and if they conquered aztecs already)
 
If you need another tag for a South American revolter, take Corsica's. I've never seen the revolt (even it it would be historically accurate if they did), so of all the revolters, they would be the one that could be moved with the least pain.

I also think that either Aragon or Catalunya should be removed and its tag should be used elsewhere. One revolter in northern Spain is enough (and there are often two anyway, since Spain often annexes Navarra). I would prefer that Aragon stays (since it was anindependent nation longer than Catalunya), but I could live with it either way.
 
Honestly most revolters add very little to the game, imo. I love to see them when they happen, but still they generally pop up and are re-annexed within a few years. What do they really add to the game? Well if you are france and see aragon pop up you might just quickly ally with them and pump some cash to them. Otherwise, they are mostly window dressing, as the previous owners of that land stampede over them and re-annex.

As far as Corsica, I have seen them revolt a number of times but they are always immediately crushed by genoa or spain. I have only seen transovania revolt once with 2 provinces and it lasted a few decades(as I kept pumping some cash their way too.) I love to see them, but again window dressing.

The revolt only country TAGs could actually be used elsewhere to add to a more well rounded world. Yes, we would miss them as revolting nations but you look at real usefulness the revolter tags could be used to fill in some RoTW gaps for other nations.

:cool:
ErrantOne
 
To be perfectly honest, of all the revolters (other than the hard-coded Dutch), only Serbia and Sicily have had any staying power in my games. I've seen both revolt several times and they are usually able to hold their own (it was particularly cool when Sicily revolted with Sardinia, making a nice marintime state hard for Spain to reconquer). I have seen Transylvania revolt and it held out pretty well for awhile, but it's performance wasn't exactly impressive. I've seen Aragon, Ukraine, New Spain, Novgorod, and Burgundy (in a regular IGC, not one of my pro-Burgundy altered ones) revolt once each, but they all were reconquered in short order.
 
The only revolters I've seen to persist are starter countries that have been annexed and then revolt at some point - specifically German countries (Saxony, Hesse, etc.). Transylvania seems to be the longest lasting of the pure revolters, but only for a few years. I just saw Serbia for the first time. Catalunya is my favorite, but alas it doesn't last long.

I agree with Errant that if use of these tags can add some good depth, then the loss of revolters would be worth it.
 
I don't know. You guys seem to be writing revolters off entirely, but I don't really buy that. In my games, the biggest things that determine if they get immediately reconquered are:
A)If they're an island or isolated land, they rarely get reconquered. (Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, any of the reappearing German states that have been conquered by say, Turkey in an alliance war...) In the same way that Turkey almost never conquers the Knights this is true.

or

B) The state of the country that they revolt from. I HAVE seen revolters last for quite a while (Most/all of the game in fact), it just all depends on the circumstances of their revolt. For one thing, one province revolters almost never last, because they don't have any option for peace with their former oppressors than to be annexed; with 2+ province revolters, they can give away a province and still survive. I don't think any of you guys are taking into account the differences in times in which revolters appear; revolters which come about simply due to say, the +3 nationalism rating for all conquered provinces never last; they aren't saying anything about the overall health of the conquering country. HOWEVER, I've seen revolters like Catalonia, Protestant France, and Ukraine last for a long time, but only when they emerge because they are a symptom of greater problems within the original power: long wars being conducted with powerful states (AI is prone to letting wars drag on way too long) that leave countries war exhausted and unable to fight off their own revolters, lack of troops due to hot war with other great powers, historical events (time of troubles) and other really large symptomatic cases where revolters appear DO tend to last, in my experience. I think to say that they always get conquered is to say that "When revolters come into being because there happens to be a successful revolt when +3 nationalism exists after a war they are always reconquered" is a true statement; but I've seen long lasting revolters, particularly when they're a part of a bigger problem for a power. Sure, France when it's at +3 stability without any war will always reconquer its revolters, but when something is really happening, they won't be able to. I wouldn't write off revolters so easily. And god do they add character to the game.
 
Last edited:
I don't know. You guys seem to be writing revolters off entirely, but I don't really buy that.
Click to expand...
Not writing them off per say, but when you look at the world for a 300 year game revolters play such a minor part is to hardly be worth mentioning. I really love to see them, but when I think in terms of what would like most...a few cameo appearances by a small 1-2 province revolters or possibly 4-5 new nations for a 300 year IGC...hmmmm, at this point new nations. I really love revolts, in fact I just saw New spain revolt taking most of the central american provinces with it (1765). They will be around for the rest of the game I am sure. plus I am pumping my own cash to them to help them survive the evil spanish hoards.

This is a very subjective issue to be sure. When I look at the big picture revolts are just very minor factors in the game. The chance to add a few new nations in RoTW areas would go alot farther in game balance vs euro-centric EU. After playing non-euro nations for a while, I would go so far as to say take out a country like ragusa which just gets annexed anyway.

Ask the question what is the impact if non-starting nation revolters were totally removed? My answer is the game looses some individuality for each IGC. What is gained by adding new non-euro nations? It certainly makes colonization a more complex task, as you would have to deal with new nations that you are colonizing near. One is only better then the other depending on your point of view. My POV is that the game is still to euro-centric and I would rather see those TAGS used to greater effect elsewhere. I am but one voice.

The real answer is I want more country tags period. Since pigs might fly first, I am not holding my breath.


:cool:
ErrantOne
 
I love the revolters. Given a choice between more countries (that make sense) and revolters, I would go with the countries.

I really wish there was more of a revolt factor. But, my wishes are along the lines of (1492) non-central governments. France, Spain, etc. were by no means unified countries. The two go hand in hand, to some degree.

Sadly (and as an example of my like for revolters), circa 1560, France has revolts everywhere (Huegonots?). Burgundy becomes independent. But, the Hanse has declared a #@$%*#() war against France. Savoy and company inadverently wipe out Burgundy and the revolters. Oh well.

I don't know that the few country tags that exist (as revolters) can be put to good use. But if so, let's do it - the problem is the limited number of tags, not the intent of what they are to be used for. Of course it should be optional, but IGC Config sounds like it has reached the end of its useful life.
 
Doomdark, I just remembered that once I made a post regarding Times of Troubles in Russia and you promised to decrease a little the number of historical events, like civil wars and waves of obscurantism. The loss of stability and trade/infrastructure are ok, but a "Dutch Nationalism" in Russia is too much :D

Thanks for the work you are doing for the EU community! :cool:
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back