Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

IGC 2.3 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
So far russia and turkey have responded well in my campaigns, however it usually takes russia 80-100 years to get into sibiria and turkey has problems with persia.

I think that in terms of game play that nubia should be removed since it was not really a power or a stabile revolter. Nubia disintegrated during the 14th century, and the Mamluks in Egypt annexed most. The remainder splintered into numerous petty states of no lasting significance and chronic civil war pitting the Moslem north against the Christian and Animist south.

I think it should be replaced by the african kingdoms of Zimbabwe or Kinshasa (pagans but should convert to moslem or catholic when first encountered).

Zimbabwe A lush highland region north of Transvaal, northeast of the Kalahari, west of Mozambique, and south of the Zambezi River; an early center of civilization for this region. Conquered by Portugal in 1629

Congo (Kinshasa) - an enormous state, which extended over much of equatorial Africa in the Congo Basin, northern Angola, and the estuary of the lower Congo River. An independent Black African state by times supported or attacked by the Portuguese.

As to the native americans, I believe that they should be allowed both infrastructure and trade advancements. And after contact with europeans they should be given the chance to convert (say a percentage based on their relations and by how many nations they have meet) and be able to gain army advancements and guns (albeit they traded for them instead of making them but they still aquired them). One way to do this is to free up a minor tag like the Thurigian, which in truth was absorbed into Saxony in the mid 1200's, and give it to the the aztec or ohio and then use the native tag to add another native nation in africa.
 
Originally posted by Ullen
So far russia and turkey have responded well in my campaigns, however it usually takes russia 80-100 years to get into sibiria and turkey has problems with persia.

I think that in terms of game play that nubia should be removed since it was not really a power or a stabile revolter. Nubia disintegrated during the 14th century, and the Mamluks in Egypt annexed most. The remainder splintered into numerous petty states of no lasting significance and chronic civil war pitting the Moslem north against the Christian and Animist south.

I think it should be replaced by the african kingdoms of Zimbabwe or Kinshasa (pagans but should convert to moslem or catholic when first encountered).

Zimbabwe A lush highland region north of Transvaal, northeast of the Kalahari, west of Mozambique, and south of the Zambezi River; an early center of civilization for this region. Conquered by Portugal in 1629

Congo (Kinshasa) - an enormous state, which extended over much of equatorial Africa in the Congo Basin, northern Angola, and the estuary of the lower Congo River. An independent Black African state by times supported or attacked by the Portuguese.

As to the native americans, I believe that they should be allowed both infrastructure and trade advancements. And after contact with europeans they should be given the chance to convert (say a percentage based on their relations and by how many nations they have meet) and be able to gain army advancements and guns (albeit they traded for them instead of making them but they still aquired them). One way to do this is to free up a minor tag like the Thurigian, which in truth was absorbed into Saxony in the mid 1200's, and give it to the the aztec or ohio and then use the native tag to add another native nation in africa.
Click to expand...

Basically EU 2 ? ;)
 
Originally posted by Crook


BiB,

This is easily correctable ;) Besides, there is a difference between the unrest and a civil war. Persia wasn't really a united country, tribal problems were not completely solved all the way into 19 century. Persia was a WEAK country until Abbas I and then it declined again until Nadir Shah and his Afghans showed up. Then again it fell into a disarray.

Shah Ismail lost Iraq to Turks.
Abbas I got it back.
Tahmasp I lost Qandahar to Mughals and was extremely inefective against the Uzbeks.
After that, Turkey, Russia plundered as much as they wanted in 1700s and only death of Peter I stopped Russia from making a Caspian Sea a Russian Sea.

Playing Persia should be challenging as it was historically. It doesn't mean we shouldn't give the same events to other nations, if they had them. It just that we can't do everything at once :) .

I somewhat agree about Russian expansion, but if we only could reprogram the Russian AI :D .

Take note Paradox, fix those Hist events, event 50 isn't working!!
Click to expand...

I know all that and I know they shouldn't be strong in long patches but maybe turn them down a bit till it evens out more.
 
Originally posted by Sir Andrew
Mayas were already gone, I think. They were the ancestors of the Aztecs, if I remember my Native American history.
Click to expand...

The Maya were still there in the Yucatan and Guatamala in 1492 (they are still there today even), but as disuntied as ever (they never were a united state, even during the Classic Period). They certainly weren't the ancestors of the Aztecs, who originally came from what is now northern Mexico and the southern US.
 
Originally posted by Ullen
So far russia and turkey have responded well in my campaigns, however it usually takes russia 80-100 years to get into sibiria and turkey has problems with persia.

I think that in terms of game play that nubia should be removed since it was not really a power or a stabile revolter. Nubia disintegrated during the 14th century, and the Mamluks in Egypt annexed most. The remainder splintered into numerous petty states of no lasting significance and chronic civil war pitting the Moslem north against the Christian and Animist south.
Click to expand...

The last Nubian state may have fallen to the Mamelukes in 1497, but the Funj kingdom almost immediately appeared in the same area and was a stable nation throughout EU time period.
 
What about using the Nubia tag to turn the Zulus into a nation? Zulu is one of my favourite movies, I'd love to be able to fight those guys.
 
Spain divided

About adding a new nation, I would add the Araucans (occupying the two provinces south of the Incan empire). The spanish conquistadors failed again and again to conquer them in the span of time portrayed in the game. They had a primitive social structure, and some well known leaders (like Lautaro and Caupolican)


And what about to add a new "fantasy" option: Isabel de Castilla and Fernando de Aragon didn't marry at all, so Aragon and Castile (Spain) are separated kingdoms. In game terms, this would mean Spain divided by two, and a whole new game...and a lot of additional work :D
Of course I would help in the research for dividing spanish leaders between the two countries.
 
Your Bib-ness,

Can you make this a sticky thread?

:cool:
ErrantOne
 
Originally posted by ErrantOne
Your Bib-ness,

Can you make this a sticky thread?

:cool:
ErrantOne
Click to expand...

Of course he can. The question is whether his Eminence will do such a thing. :D
 
Just a suggestion...

In no way am I a man of history (at least in comparison with the rest of you), but this has been bothering me... shouldn't SOME province be in rebellion at the onset of the campaign? Doesn't it make sense that somewhere in the world there might be a province with a 3% revolt risk (newly conquered, in revolt, etc.). I would love to see some action on the game board. Currently, the only active stuff is with Granada.

Just seems awfully strange that the entire world is at peace besides Granada.

Oh, and another thing... shouldn't some countries have no flags on some of their territories? The only example of this that I have found is that England doesn't have a flag on Calais.

Maybe it is perfectly historical, but I find it exceedingly boring that the world it ready to START its new history at the onset of 1492, and not already be IN it. Couldn't we spice things up a bit with some more wars or rebellions?
 
In no way am I a man of history (at least in comparison with the rest of you), but this has been bothering me... shouldn't SOME province be in rebellion at the onset of the campaign? Doesn't it make sense that somewhere in the world there might be a province with a 3% revolt risk (newly conquered, in revolt, etc.). I would love to see some action on the game board. Currently, the only active stuff is with Granada.
Click to expand...

I agree. I know there was some discussion about representing Eireland has being English, but in severe revolt. Also, to remove English CB shields from Scotland and Eireland and replacing with temporary CB's (that last till 1792). I think similar thoughts existed for the Balkens. Replace all the Turkish shields with temporary CB's. The Turk's will have to deal with rebellions, then.
 
Re: Just a suggestion...

Originally posted by Delpheyboy
In no way am I a man of history (at least in comparison with the rest of you), but this has been bothering me... shouldn't SOME province be in rebellion at the onset of the campaign? Doesn't it make sense that somewhere in the world there might be a province with a 3% revolt risk (newly conquered, in revolt, etc.). I would love to see some action on the game board. Currently, the only active stuff is with Granada.

Just seems awfully strange that the entire world is at peace besides Granada.

Oh, and another thing... shouldn't some countries have no flags on some of their territories? The only example of this that I have found is that England doesn't have a flag on Calais.

Maybe it is perfectly historical, but I find it exceedingly boring that the world it ready to START its new history at the onset of 1492, and not already be IN it. Couldn't we spice things up a bit with some more wars or rebellions?
Click to expand...

This makes sense for areas that had been conquered or annexed just before the beginning of the game, within the 30 years it takes for nationalism to calm down. Cyprus and Tver were both annexed in the 1480s, Novgorod in the 1470s, and Bosnia in the 1460s. I don't know whether it's possible to have such a chance for revolt to be coded in at the beginning of the game.

As for wars, I can't honestly think of another war that was in progess on 1 January 1492. Technically, the war between Castile and Aragon on one side and Granada on the other was only happening in the very strictest technical sense, as Granada had already negotiated surrender and Fernando and Isabel were to enter the city in triumph within a week of the game's start.
 
Swahili states is a very intriguing idea. I guess the biggest thing for me is their incredible weakness due to the fact that they'd inhabit the worst provinces in the game in terms of -location bonuses. So if there was any way that they could sustain some population, (Start with 1000+ people? Does that do it or not?) or something, then that'd be a pretty darn cool addition, IMHO, especially because they'd be Muslim and advance in tech, albeit very slowly. You could also (very cool) make the Swahili states aware of China, because of the voyages of Cheng Ho (I think that was his name) when China exchanged diplomats with the Swahili states. Again, it's a BIT of an abstraction, since they were never TERRIBLY unified, except when the Portuguese unified them (except for the city of Mombasa (or Malindi, I forget), the Portuguese lapdogs!)but I think it's an abstraction that can be made, especially because it would add a lot to gameplay too! I'd say the Zulu's were much more of an abstraction than the Swahili's and only really became an issue in the 1800s, after this game... Anyway. Congo doesn't work very well since we can't explore into the inland of Africa (good idea otherwise though) and Great Zimbabwe and Mapun something or other seem like they're a little too small compared to something like the Swahili states. As BiB said, most of these things ARE great ideas for future EUs, but I personally think that if we can get over this horribly location issue, the Swahili states are a great idea for EU 1, not just future EUs, both in terms of gameplay and in terms of appropriateness.
 
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.
 
Seeing the latest trend is to include tota lchaos situatiosn :D 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.

- 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 ? :D

- 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.

- 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.

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

And those are just the biggest and most obvious ones out there :D Seems a bit odd to not have at least these events and give Persia 3 waves of troubled times :D
 
I like the idea of an east African 'Swahili' state - it should limit Turkish and European expansion in the area. Sunni with mostly pagan provinces would be appropriate.

The Ngoni peoples in southern Africa (Xhosa, Zulu, etc) were not sufficiently organised to be defined as a nation in the EU period - aggressive native populations are a better model. However, central African kingdoms existed that challenged Portuguese expansion, and nations such as the Kasanje were formed in response to the Portuguese and eventually drove them out. Most of their lands would be PTI, however.

For EU 2, it would be nice to have a variety of initially 'undiscovered' nations - with players (and the AI) not actually aware of what was going to appear.

As a further note, a 'fragmented Spain' option might add to game play...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back