IGC 2.3 Discussion

[Doomdark]

Ok, I might as well start up this thread right away. I need your feedback on 2.2, especially on these issues:

- Are you satisfied with the new Portuguese colonial efforts or should the AI be tuned back more towards trade posts?

- Are you happy with the historically accurate periods of unrest in Persia and Uzbekistan?

- Which nation would you most like to see instead of Granada: Kazakhs, Taungu (Burma), Koryo (Korea), or some other nation?

Any other complaints and suggestions for the next version?

 

[Doomdark]

Do you ever take a rest?

Yes, I do, but the people on this forum don't.

It is better to collect all the relevant info in one place so I can use it when the time comes to update the IGC again...

 

[Doomdark]

Interesting suggestions people... Keep 'em coming.

The Union of Kalmar option is broken in 2.2, so a 2.2b is imminent. I would like to correct any balance issues at the same time.

 

[Doomdark]

Seeing the latest trend is to include tota lchaos situatiosn How about these (only a few and the biggest) :

- Inca Civil War. Wasn't the reason the Spanish took them over that easily because of the fact they were just busy in a civil war and the Spanish exploited that ? Now the Incas alrdeay are a walkover. Sadly not for the AI as I have never seen Spain conquer them. Not because they're too hard but because they can't handle the geographical situation.

Perhaps, but it is no biggie. You are right that Spain almost never conquers the Inca anymore... I wonder why that is? I will see if I can weaken the Incas a bit...

- China : The transition from Ming to Ching around 1644. Some decades before and after this which basically was China being conquered from the north by the Manchus and taking over. Xurely that ought have some influence ?

Good one. I will implement it.

- Japan : The transition from the Ashikaga shogunate to the Tokugawa shogunate, civil war in the decades running up to 1600. And even after 1600 there hardly was a unified country with all the Tozama outer lords.

A couple of civil wars for Japan. Coming right up.

- Spain : How about getting some serious events in to hamper their economy a whole lot near the end of the 18th century to portray their decline, which basically was an economic one.

Hmmm, and how would one go about doing this? Unless the decline was dynastic in nature (which it wasn't IMO) I am very hesitant to implement it due to divergent histories and such.

- Turkey : Quite the same as Spain, they need to fall back later on.

Same objection as for Spain.

And those are just the biggest and most obvious ones out there Seems a bit odd to not have at least these events and give Persia 3 waves of troubled times

True. There is still a lot of work to do. However, I don't want to afflict the usual player nations too much. I already intend to lessen the Persian effects a bit or make them optional.

 

[Doomdark]

And separately from that, I always supported consistency. Seems weird to give the other big nations bad events that historically happened while historical events that happenend to Spain don't get in. Spain alrdeay went bankrupt under Filips II and he was a half decent monarch

The thing to remember here is never to go in and meddle with stuff that is already simulated dynamically by the game engine. For example, if a country went bankrupt in history it does not follow that it would necessarily happen in EU, since the economical model is in the hands of the player. We don't want that any more than we want hardwired DoW events.

What we can (and should) do is introduce the effects of dynastical turmoil, since the historical monarchs are static. Remember that the file is even called "Historical events monarchs.csv".

In my own corner of the world, there are such juicy civil wars as the "Grevefejd" in Denmark 1534-36, the abdication of Sigismund in Sweden in 1598. (Not to mention a great many periods of unrest in Poland.

 

[Doomdark]

Crook,

A deadline... Well, how about this Sunday? Did you have some reworked Turkish monarchs and leaders too?

 

[Doomdark]

Alexandre,

Very good suggestions for Moldavia and Wallachia. Most of them will certainly make their way into IGC 2.3.

1) How and where would it be most useful for you to receive corrected
information? (Here or via e-mail, and what formatting would be most
convenient?)
2) Some of the Romanian princes reigned for a very short time (in some
cases only a few months). Do you want to go for historical accuracy, or do you want me to drop some of the minor monarchs and only list the year plus reigns?
3) How many leaders should I provide for each principality so that I don't damage game ballance?
4) Do you want the correct accents on the leader and monarch names?

1) E-mail to doomdark@ludd.luth.se.
2) Go for accuracy whenever possible.
3) Provide as many as you like and let me weed out a few if I think there are too many.
4) Yes.

However, I don't have time to put your revised monarchs and leaders into the required game files. Therefore I must ask that you work with the .wal and .mol files and send them to me finished. I will assign valid IDs to them (use xxxx for the new leaders and monarchs).

 

[Doomdark]

Yeah, I got them. The changes will be included in 2.2b, which I will release ASAP. I just wish to get to the bottom of the crash problems some people have reported first.

 

[Doomdark]

Alexandre,

I'm going to remove a few fake monarch names. Do you want me to recycle those IDs, or just let you know which one's I've removed?

Recycle the IDs, mark new ones with XXXX.

How do you want me to identify the same prince when he's re-elected in one principality, or between the two principalities?

No need, really, but you can add a line like this:

remark = "Re-elected."

...or some such.

When I get to the leaders file, does it matter to game play what percentage of the leaders end up as monarchs? I have a feeling that on a historical level it should be heavier for many of the minors, and certainly the two principalities, since great war leaders tended to be elected reigning prince, and being war leader was a very important part of being reigning prince.

Just attempt to compare the leader's abilities with other leaders in the game. If you think he matches up, put him in, balance be damned.

 

[Doomdark]

Just a little data dump on what I currently plan for IGC 2.3:

- Granada will be replaced with a more useful nation. (Poll underway.)
- Sardinia will be reinstated as a revolter. ARG tag will probably be used for New Spain.
- Catalunya will probably become a combined Catalunya-Aragon revolter.
- Reworking of the core provinces and relations in the Balkans.
- FPR tag will be used for Transylvania, leaving the PRO tag free.
- PRO tag will be used for something nice. Languedoc, Brazil or Argentina spring to mind.
- Naples and Sicily will have CB shields on each others provinces.
- Poland will get several (optional) waves of historical unrest.
- The IGC config tool might (I need time, time!) support the 1520.inc.
- Byzantium fantasy option. (Again, if I have time.)

I am sure there will be other minor changes, but this is the gist of it.

 

[Doomdark]

Maur13,

Seriously, isn't PRO a protestant tag?

No, it was originally Provence. In hindsight, it was probably a mistake to use it for Transylvania. (Provence was a much more active and interesting revolter than FPR.)

And about Poland's historical events, what do you mean?

Well, how about some of the Cossack uprisings? A couple of unrest waves for the period 1648-1666 perhaps?

(uhm, i hope that you will move that army in western prussia, it's suffering a small attrition now, it's not very importatnt, but would be nice)

I checked this, and they don't seem to suffer attrition. Maybe during winter?

 

[Doomdark]

i would like to play as Finland or Greece. Whenever I choose them the game crashes. In fact, I don't see Finland at all. What happened? error.

If you are using 2.2b, please download 2.2c (2.2b did not unzip correctly and might cause the problems you describe.)

 

[Doomdark]

Viking,

- Finland and norway do NOT convert to protestantism in the IGC.

That's right. This is a regular bug, so you should take it up with Paradox. (NOR and KAL tags should convert.)

- option for removing dai viet and ayahattaya

Simple enough to do I suppose. Will consider it for 2.3.

- For burgundy the mighty start it as a vassal of spain or austria

Why?

- all nations option, make all existing revolters appear on map new spain, granada, transilvania, ukraine, hugenotts ect.ect. they start as vassals of country they are part of.. sort of like balkanisation.

Interesting... It would require a lot of work though. Not sure it's worth it.

- reduced colonisation option. it halves the number of colonists in first three colonisation periods, I do this by hand and it seems more historical. Considering doing it late game as well, but my "human" intervention screwes up the balance.

The IGC+ dudes have done some nice changes to the colonization. I am already considering adopting some of it.

-the mughal settlers thing should be an option, if so give the conquistadors, same for china.

Hmm. No. No conquistadors. Perhaps an option, but I can't make every change optional.

-consider pagan mysore, to prevent moghul annexation, same for muslim dai viet.. (unhistorical, yes but..)

Dai Viet and Ayutthaya are no longer being annexed by China routinely. A pagan Mysore is workable, but would not be much fun for human players.

-alternative future powers 1,2,3,4 ect.ect. give the pru, bra and swe tags to some other country such as saxony, hungary or papacy or three other sets of minors and switch leader files and change their names so that the "dont go to war with sweden between 1610 and 1632 rule does not apply

No way. You're asking me to rebuild the game.

-turkish cb on vienna, austrian cb on constantinopel, same for england france, spain france, france austria, austria prussia, sweden denmark, russia poland..so that you can allways fight your main enemy.

No. Even traditional enemies needed reasons to go to war.

 

[Doomdark]

Dagfinn,

I will look into this.

 

[Doomdark]

Sounds yummy.

 

[Doomdark]

Crook,

I have no specific deadline for 2.3. Basically I will finish it when I have time. Persian dynamism will be limited a bit as you say. Auytthaya... Sure.

Also, I really approve of your campaign to get Paradox to fix the historical events and get the AI to colonize up to 1000 (but it should only do so if the growth was negative.)

 

[Doomdark]

Sure Cornelius, although it looks like Korea will win. I think someone cheated yesterday though, as Korea suddenly spiked from 9 votes to 22 in three hours.

You might want to coordinate your Kazakh research with Crook though; he's already done a lot of work with them I think.

 

[Doomdark]

Thanks man!

 

[Doomdark]

Sorry but I don't understand the validity of a poll where people can cheat. Cheating is very simple. I can register with several niks so that I can vote several time. How do you consider all this?

Well, the only sane thing I can do is to consider the poll no longer decisive. I am sorry, but the final word will have to be mine, although it will be based on the outcome of the poll. Right now, that would be Zanj.

 

[Doomdark]

so when exactly is 2.3 going to be released? any specific date?

No specific date. I can say that apart from the support of the 1520 scenario in the IGCConfig, the Byzantium scenario and the inclusion of the new nation from this poll, I am done.