IGC 2.3 Discussion

[unmerged(2970)]

I would like to make some proposals for Persia:

Shah Abbas (1587-1629) strengthened the bureaucracy, and further centralized the administration, and also promoted commerce and the arts;
- event: 1000d invested in trade and 1000d in infrastructure

Shah created an army of loyal to him men to counterbalance the power of the local chieftains [during wartime the Persian army was composed like in medieval Europe with armies of small landlords];
- event: reformation of army

He encouraged trade with Dutch and British;
- event: relations improvement with +25

After Shah Abbas II (1642- 66) died, Persia entered in decline, maladministration of state lands, excessive taxation, the decline of trade:
- event: -1 stability, half of trade and infrastructure development lost

With the end of Safavid dynasty in 1722, Persia entered in a period of turmoil and civil war, until 1794 when Qajar clan gained control of Persia:
- event: civil war, several +3 revolt risk

 

[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.

 

[unmerged(3021)]

Posted by Sir James:
"The Ngoni peoples in southern Africa (Xhosa, Zulu, etc) were not sufficiently organised to be defined as a nation in the EU period "

Shaka might disagree.

 

[Sir James]

Shaka was about 5 at the end of EU - the Zulu empire didn't start to form until c1814.

 

[Sir James]

And Shaka didn't bother with 'disagreeing' with people

 

[Yasko]

Here is some historical events for the Ottomans, those suggestions for loss of stability is mine. But rebbelions like in "celali" at 1600 continued for 12 years and could be simulated like "light" civil war.........


1563 -1 stability, "Suleyman I" killes his first born son, his son was popular among the army

1600 -3 stability, the "celali" revolt starts in anatolia, continuing in many years, rebellions against the land tenure system of the provincial fief-holding cavalry. This turn-of-the-century upheaval marks the end of the Classical Age and the opening pf a new chapter in Ottoman history characterized by the waning of the state's political and military fortunes.

1622 -3 stability, Osman I gets killed by Janissaries, first time a sultan is overthrown from power, rebelions and corruption fallowed

Murad IV was in charge between 1623-1640 but he was just a child 1623, he didnt take control of the state affairs before 1632. He was an able ruler, but the empire was ruled by a coalition of his mother and corrupted and incompetent Janissaries leaders between 1623-1632. You could probably put a +1 stability event when Murad IV takes control of the state affairs.

1649 -3 stability, Ibrahim I, who were mentally ill is removed, once again the empire is ruled by incompetent and corrupted Janissaries leaders.

1709 stablity -1

1734 stabilty -3, "Patrona Halil" rebellion against taxation and western influences; Ahmet III deposed, Tulip Period ends.

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Doomdark


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...

>>>> I think that Spain just can't handle the geography of the country. The fact there aren't any walls makes the Incas able to always control a lot of provinces as they have more troops than Spain. Xure they're hardly ever gonna win a fight but they can always make xure Spain isn't in a position to actually win any ground. They can handle the Aztecs as there are only 4 or 5 of them. Even when u go about it as a human it takes soem planning and is best to be attacked by various sides to complete a swift takeover. And we all know the AI isn't exactly a great planner like a human player ...

I don't see how u can weaken the Incas They have tech level 0 in everything or so and can't build anything but troops. I think giving small forts to every Incan province would actually make the Spanish get further. They would be able to take a few provinces at a time. They can take forts quite easily because of their military superioirty and won't lose them again to Incan hordes on the flee because those are unable to conquer forts. They wouldn't annex the Incas in one go but should be able to take some provinces each time which is better than now.

Granted giving them forts is hardly historic but if it pans out that the Spanish actually annex them that way (that is IF ) it may be worth looking into. Seems weird but the AI may be better in conquering a nation with all small forts then one with none as it is too stupid to hold on to taken provinces. The Incas were stronger than the Aztecs anyway (maybe symbolised by the forts) and if they get forts a civil war event may counter balance that.

Another drastic solution is to radically lessen the provinces owned by the Incas. I played the 1520.inc before it got the IGC treatment and in that they only had 5 provinces or so and Spain had no trouble annexing those.

Good one. I will implement it. A couple of civil wars for Japan. Coming right up.

>>>> There should be some history buffs out there who can provide more info on it. If there are some out there btw they xure could give a lot more events but I often feel there's overkill on leaders (do u really need all those conquistadors as Spain or those explorers as Holland for example ?) and events at times but u can't leave out the most important ones. Though then for that one moment u can go all out like the Time of Troubles Anyway, if no one is a buff on that, I'll look up a few things but I won't promise pinpoint expertise

A thing though that may be worth considering or could cause trouble is that if China/Japan have big forts and they get taken by rebels, will they be able to take them back ?

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.

>>>> So, it wasn't really dynastic but Spain did not have a good economy. And admittedly they had some crap monarchs near the end. Carlos II the Inbred, anyone ? He was the last Habsburg and really made some bad economical decisions (I know of a few that affect colonisation and overseas trade) and he reigned for a long time. I was thinking of hitting Spain in his reign, 1665-1700. After the new dynasty came to the throne they really had to clear out the Habsburg crap which had culminated under Carlos II.

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 On top of that those events so far happen to strong countries but the tsrongest ones so far are not effected. Spain and Turkey are as of yet free from any serious trouble even though they really lost their major power status in the 18th century.

I don't know much about the Turks (but above alrdeay has helped me out ) but from the juggernaught they were at the start they somehow should end up as the sick man of Europe near the end.

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.

>>>> If possible make them all optional. So that way u get more of a players game and a more history buff's game who likes all the events. If possible I'd like to be able to turn events of for certain countries when the AI plays them but I'd like them full front when playing myself. The player is more adept at handling those. I can handle the Time of Troubles but the AI has more trouble and often Russia falls apart which I don't like to see.

Anyway, keep up the good work !

 

[unmerged(1302)]

BiB,

Good and long (!!) post. I second that. I am currently working on Persia and Mughals. More events, leaders and monarchs coming your way.
BTW, About a dozen or so monarchs should be hit with insanity event late in the game (e.g. Carlos II), and not only Ivan IV.

I also have some kinda dilemma: Technically Karim Shah was NEVER a Shah, he was Vaqil (sort of like Pime Minister, I believe) for a puppet Shah Ismail III. I am contemplating 3 options:

1. leave Karim Shah as is;

2. replace Karim Shah with Ismail III but give the latter good stats;

3. replace Karim Shah with Ismail III and put a historical event "Excel Minister" attached to Ismail III.

I personally favor option number 3.

What's your take guys?

Crook

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Crook
BiB,

Good and long (!!) post. I second that. I am currently working on Persia and Mughals. More events, leaders and monarchs coming your way.
BTW, About a dozen or so monarchs should be hit with insanity event late in the game (e.g. Carlos II), and not only Ivan IV.

I also have some kinda dilemma: Technically Karim Shah was NEVER a Shah, he was Vaqil (sort of like Pime Minister, I believe) for a puppet Shah Ismail III. I am contemplating 3 options:

1. leave Karim Shah as is;

2. replace Karim Shah with Ismail III but give the latter good stats;

3. replace Karim Shah with Ismail III and put a historical event "Excel Minister" attached to Ismail III.

I personally favor option number 3.

What's your take guys?

Crook

3 seems easily the best. It's accurate historically and the country still gets a leader with good stats in the game.

 

[unmerged(1302)]

Okay, will put it in.

Doomie,

can you set a deadline for 2.2b, I am going to finish Persian leaders and monarchs soon + Hist Events.

Crook

 

[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?

 

[BiB]

I did not say I want Spain to become bankrupt always (though there are hardcoded things in this game ) but I just used that as an example of the fact Spain had quite crap economic administration even in a time when Spain had an able monarch.

Under the insane Carlos II it really became crap and I was more thinking about some events like lost trade investment and so which really should be appropriate. For example he managed to feck up several institutions who were in charge of colonial trade.

 

[Chema_Cagi]

Spanish leaders and monarchs files for 2.2b

Just sent to Doomie the leaders.spa and monarchs.spa files a bit tweaked. Shortened most of those long spanish names (they didn't fit well into the leader's name window), and corrected the minor bug of Bernardo Gálvez listed twice as general (instead of general and admiral)

Also, renamed Columbus into its hispanized name, Cristóbal Colón, mostly because Christopher Columbus didn't fit at all into the name window, and because, apart from the controversial origin of Columbus (surely he was genoese), the current descendants are named "Colón".

Changed also the name of first spanish king, Fernando I, into most significant "Isabel y Fernando", since it was a mostly unusual case of a true mancomunity between two rulers of different kingdoms.
I'm not sure if they are widely known as the "Catholic Kings" as they are known today in Spain ("Reyes Católicos")

 

[Demetrios]

What I did for the early Spanish monarchs was this:

Fernando V of Aragon and Isabel I of Castilla
Felipe I and Juana la Loca
Fernando V
Carlos I

The first one was a bit long, but it fit in OK. I included Felipe and Juana because they were monarchs in Castilla in their own right and Fernando was confined to Aragon during their reign. Bringing Fernando back seems a bit odd (and you have to waste a ID on him), but that's what happened historically.

I also wanted to add historical events but never managed to get them to work right. I was going to have a conversion event during Fernando and Isabel's reign (as the Catholic Monarchs; yes, they are known as that outside Spain as well) and a temporary insanity of monarch at the end of Felipe and Juana's rule (she did go rather spectacularly mad when her husband died).

 

[unmerged(2238)]

Briefly:

1) Incas need to be brought down to size. They never get annexed anymore. So that's that. I don't know how you guys are going to do it, but I think that regardless it needs to happen. Another offshoot of that is since they pretty much never get annexed, spain gets into endless wars with them which increase war exhaustion and other stuff.

2)Divided Spain is a neat idea. I like it as a fantasy option. If that can work (with the limited tags...) it would be cool.

3)I direct your attention to the minors. We still need a few good men to get just a few more leaders (generals, admirals) for some of the minors, IMO.

4) I know a bit about Japanese history and the 1500s were a time of a lot of turmoil; of course, so were all the years before that too for quite a while. It was finally unified by, of course, Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa. I'm not sure how/if you'd want to model it. Before 1600 or so, things were extremely chaotic and you could legitimately claim there was civil war until Nobunaga beat everybody into submission about 1580. After that there was fighting when Nobunaga died and Hideyoshi took over, and there was a big battle of Sekigihara (something close to that.) where Tokugawa and his allies took on the rest of the Daimyo for supremacy. Tokugawa won and set up the Tokugawa system. Obviously, Of course, any outside invaders into Japan would probably have been met with a unified Japanese front, regardless. I'm not even sure if it'd be worth modeling a civil war for the 1500s...

5) Nice work Doomdark.

 

[Vandelay]

Is there any way to simulate population booms or busts with monarch events?

I'm thinking specifically of the expulsion of Jews from Spain 1492 and Portugal 1497 which should lead to depopulation of their cities and raised urban pops in the Ottoman Empire, Nort Africa and Naples.

I know there´s a pestilence event to decrease pop., but are there events that raise population? London never grows into the juggernaut it should be by late 18th century and Stockholm does not grow as much as it should in the 17th century - I'm sure there are other examples that I don´t know about.

/Vandelay

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Vandelay
Is there any way to simulate population booms or busts with monarch events?

I'm thinking specifically of the expulsion of Jews from Spain 1492 and Portugal 1497 which should lead to depopulation of their cities and raised urban pops in the Ottoman Empire, Nort Africa and Naples.

I know there´s a pestilence event to decrease pop., but are there events that raise population? London never grows into the juggernaut it should be by late 18th century and Stockholm does not grow as much as it should in the 17th century - I'm sure there are other examples that I don´t know about.

/Vandelay

There are loads of such exceptions. Vienna and Amsterdam should grow way more, Otalian cities should fall back later on, ... Population irl hardly grew according to some set rules which are the same for everyone. Sadly I odn't see no way of fixing this.

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by John_Keats
Briefly:

1) Incas need to be brought down to size. They never get annexed anymore. So that's that. I don't know how you guys are going to do it, but I think that regardless it needs to happen. Another offshoot of that is since they pretty much never get annexed, spain gets into endless wars with them which increase war exhaustion and other stuff.

2)Divided Spain is a neat idea. I like it as a fantasy option. If that can work (with the limited tags...) it would be cool.

3)I direct your attention to the minors. We still need a few good men to get just a few more leaders (generals, admirals) for some of the minors, IMO.

4) I know a bit about Japanese history and the 1500s were a time of a lot of turmoil; of course, so were all the years before that too for quite a while. It was finally unified by, of course, Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa. I'm not sure how/if you'd want to model it. Before 1600 or so, things were extremely chaotic and you could legitimately claim there was civil war until Nobunaga beat everybody into submission about 1580. After that there was fighting when Nobunaga died and Hideyoshi took over, and there was a big battle of Sekigihara (something close to that.) where Tokugawa and his allies took on the rest of the Daimyo for supremacy. Tokugawa won and set up the Tokugawa system. Obviously, Of course, any outside invaders into Japan would probably have been met with a unified Japanese front, regardless. I'm not even sure if it'd be worth modeling a civil war for the 1500s...

5) Nice work Doomdark.

Nearly a century of civil war I feel should at least make the game somehow

 

[Savant]

Is the current version 2.2 or 2.3?

In any case, the thread started with a query about TAG preferences. I would still like to see Sardinia restored. I also lament the absence of a potential Provence revolter, but will accept the disemboweled corpse of New Hispania in lieu of Provence.