-
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.
Hey all,
I will add a few (4 to be exact) Persian leaders, and would correct the Persian monarchs as well. I didn't have a chance to look into Turkey's leaders yet, that probably and Mughals will be left for 2.3.
I would add some events for Persians, some good some bad. I am hesitant on adding new civil war events, even though after the death of Nadir in 1747 Persia enjoyed only 15 years of peace.
I will add a temp insanity of monarch to Carlos II, and I would drop a few revolts for 1520-21 to picture the Communieros in Spain (am I correct, Chema-Cagi?)
Crook
I will add a few (4 to be exact) Persian leaders, and would correct the Persian monarchs as well. I didn't have a chance to look into Turkey's leaders yet, that probably and Mughals will be left for 2.3.
I would add some events for Persians, some good some bad. I am hesitant on adding new civil war events, even though after the death of Nadir in 1747 Persia enjoyed only 15 years of peace.
I will add a temp insanity of monarch to Carlos II, and I would drop a few revolts for 1520-21 to picture the Communieros in Spain (am I correct, Chema-Cagi?)
Crook
Those Communeros shouldn't be too hard though.
I think u'll be hardpressed to find many monarchs who never had a bit of strife under their rule
I think u'll be hardpressed to find many monarchs who never had a bit of strife under their rule
Just a few comments.:^)
BiB: Nearly a century of civil war I feel should at least make the game somehow
Hard to argue that one. The Sengoku period was was a military free for all that really lasted until about 1600, though it trailed off toward the end and some strife did follow in 1614 and 1638. Have to think of a good way to model this..if it helps I can easily look up some dates for major events that would be modeled as rebellion chances or something. Maybe a fall of government about the time the last Ashikaga shogun was deposed by Nobunaga.
And speaking of Nobunaga, the general list I looked at has him with a Fire Rating of just one, rather weak for the first daimyo to make really effective use of firearms in Japan.:^)
One thought, the monarchs used for Nippon in the game are the emperors. While I can't fault that, really the emperors had not ruled Japan in anything more than a ceremonial role for centuries, with one brief exception. The Shoguns were the men ruling, so it might make more sense if it was their ratings that impacted the country. Well..except during the period where the last Ashikaga shogun was deposed and Tokugawa took over...then we might fudge a little.:^)
All Purpose Cultural Samurai Girl
Miko
BiB: Nearly a century of civil war I feel should at least make the game somehow
Hard to argue that one. The Sengoku period was was a military free for all that really lasted until about 1600, though it trailed off toward the end and some strife did follow in 1614 and 1638. Have to think of a good way to model this..if it helps I can easily look up some dates for major events that would be modeled as rebellion chances or something. Maybe a fall of government about the time the last Ashikaga shogun was deposed by Nobunaga.
And speaking of Nobunaga, the general list I looked at has him with a Fire Rating of just one, rather weak for the first daimyo to make really effective use of firearms in Japan.:^)
One thought, the monarchs used for Nippon in the game are the emperors. While I can't fault that, really the emperors had not ruled Japan in anything more than a ceremonial role for centuries, with one brief exception. The Shoguns were the men ruling, so it might make more sense if it was their ratings that impacted the country. Well..except during the period where the last Ashikaga shogun was deposed and Tokugawa took over...then we might fudge a little.:^)
All Purpose Cultural Samurai Girl
Miko
Hm...good idea.:^) I think most of the emperors' stats are not so good, which fits perfectly for the period up until Nobunaga. Can ministers serve for the period of more than one ruler? Just add ministers at a few times to represent the really capable Shogun (and Hideyoshi:^)
All Purpose Cultural Goth Girl
Miko
All Purpose Cultural Goth Girl
Miko
I had wondered about the Shoguns, too. I think Ministers go with the monarch, but I imagine you can "reappoint" them.
In game terms, there was no actual rule of Spain by Felipe "the Beatiful". He died suddenly (in Flandres?) before being actually crowned, and his widow got really mad after his death (she kept speaking to the already rotting corpse of her husband for weeks, while it was being moved to Spain...quite creepy
), but since she had already shown a quite unstable personality while Felipe was alive, none thought to let her ruling the country.Or at least so it is how I recall the history.
The special thing about mentioning Isabel and Fernando together it's because they were actually a mancomunity of kings (it was said "tanto monta, monta tanto Isabel como Fernando" ="it counts so much, so much counts Isabel as Fernando")
The marriage was a very intelligent political agreement between the kingdoms of Castilla and Aragon, ending with centuries of wars, but it was made clear that both kings were equally important and able to dictate laws to affect the partner kingdom.
Actually Carlos II was mentally retarded. In his last years the poor guy was awfully scared by rumours about witchcraft and spells put on him...rumours created by opposing political factions to blackmail each other. He didn't rule at all, only appeared in a figurative way. The ruler of the country was the "valido" (the "most favoured") Conde-Duque de Olivares.
The Comuneros revolt started when Carlos I was elected Emperor of the HRE as Karl V and left Spain, after having required some 400 Ducats (in game terms) to buy the favor of the Elector Princes. (just think of you being substracted 400 D in 1520 during a game campaign...
so were the Comuneros angry!!)If the event can be "programmed" to occur if Karl V is elected as Emperor, it would be more accurate.
The Comuneros was a revolt originating among the low nobility, rising merchant class and sectors of the church. It had a nationalistic flavour. Almost at the same time there was the "Germanias" (Brotherhoods) uprising, originated in the guilds of craftsmen, that was more social in nature.
In game time, it took from 1520 to 1521 to suffocate them (you were quite right, Crook, as ever!
)
A nation I'd like to see is the Hopi. I think at present the colonization model doesn't reflect the reality of the Southwest, which was conquered, not colonized- and revolted rather successfully for a brief time. People with more native american history knowledge than I may be able to supply a few leaders, but something like "Tribal Elders" would work at least as well as "Clan Chiefs" works representing Ireland. THey should be pretty much a pushover, but not totally, since it was a hard region to hold. I think this would better represent how the SW was "won" (or lost) than by sending loads of Spaniards to New Mexico-Arizona (which never reallty happened)
Also, I think the Aztecs and Incas need to be hit with a plauge and subsequent stability loss contingent on contact with europeans to be accurate. If they were included, there would be a few months lag time before the plauge-stability hits the Hopi, but they should get it too.
just my 2 ducats
Also, I think the Aztecs and Incas need to be hit with a plauge and subsequent stability loss contingent on contact with europeans to be accurate. If they were included, there would be a few months lag time before the plauge-stability hits the Hopi, but they should get it too.
just my 2 ducats
I agree that a small Hopi nation sounds appropriate. The plague idea, too sounds good to me.
I'm pretty new to the game, and haven't yet spent much time in the New World. Are the Iroquois or the Cherokee ever organized as small tribal states?
I'm pretty new to the game, and haven't yet spent much time in the New World. Are the Iroquois or the Cherokee ever organized as small tribal states?
The Cherokee also had a federation like he said. Didn't they even have a written language?
There aren't any more N. American indian graphicked tags. In fact, there aren't any available tags period, except for the one Doomdark is considering taking from Grenada, which is Muslim. And once again: Putting more native nations in the game makes it easier to colonize the Americas, which already happens early enough anyway, IMHO...
I vote for getting rid of the Uzbeks. Played 2.2 earlier today, they don't seem to add much, neither do bloody Sibir. I say we axe those two and put more popular nations in.
Also, how about an option for an already united Netherlands (more than just those two provinces), similar to the start in Imperialism II.
Also, how about an option for an already united Netherlands (more than just those two provinces), similar to the start in Imperialism II.
Hi Doomdark:
Even though I haven't yet started playing IGC 2.2 (yet), I do have a few suggestions for 2.3. Specifically, in another thread, you asked for help with the leaders for minors.
Specifically, I took a look at the leader and monarch lists for Wallachia and Moldavia. Most of the historical monarchs are missing, and the dip/mil/admin ratings are rather odd. Each country has only one leader.
In a seperate thread you asked for help in enlarging the leader lists for the minors. I'd be happy to provide you with a complete list of princes for both countries and to work on a leader list for each one.
That, however, raises a few questions:
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?
I'd also like to see the following changes to more accurately reflect
the historical situation:
1) In each of my games, AI controlled Wallachia takes advantage of its vasslage/alliance with the Ottomans to conquer extensive Persian and Mamluke provinces. This is historically inaccurate. Given the way that vassalage works in EU, I'd eliminate the Wallachian vassalage to the Ottomans.
2) Moldavia and Wallachia regularly exchanged monarchs (the positions were elective, like in Poland), had brothers as princes or even the same prince at the same time. Consequently, I'd favor seeing a very close Wallachian-Moldavian alliance (+180 or more) and vassalage(historically, either one can be the vassal, since the dominant principality switched, depending upon personalities of the two princes). I'm not concerned about annexation, since in OTL, Michael the Brave did briefly unify Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania. In a reasonable alternative history, Romanian unification could have stuck well before the 1800's.
3) During most of the period covered by this game, Bessarabia was a Moldavian province. At a minimum, Moldavia needs to have a CB on Bessarabia. You may want to consider giving it outright to Moldavia, while PL retains a CB shield to it.
4) I'd give both principalities CB to each others territories, since there were no nationalist rebellions under any of the historical cases of joint rule (that would include Dobrudja, Bujak and Bessarabia). I'd also consider giving CB to the Transylvania provinces (Transylvania, Banat and Maros). While one of them (Maros) had a Hungarian majority, the others were populated by ethnic Romanians, and that may help reflect the historical conflicts between the two principalities and Hungary. I wouldn't remove the Hungarian shields - these were contested provinces (even if Hungary usually ruled them), and to all the Romanian Ottoman provinces.
5) None of the Romanian provinces were ever annexed by the Turks precisely because of nationalist revolts. I'd strongly urge you to remove the Ottoman CB shields from Moldavia and Wallachia themselves. Instead, give the Ottomans a temporary CB lasting till 1792. That would reflect the historical reality of constant Romanian resistance to Ottoman imperialist designs far more accurately.
Moving to other areas of the IGC:
1) There are many Moslem provinces that should still be Orthodox in 1492, and some that were still Orthodox at least into the 1700's or even 1800's. [Speifically, all of the currently Molsem provinces in the Balkans, Smyrna and Trezebon.] There also were Orthodox majorities in Transylvania and Banat. If you want, you can give the Ottomans one or two more conversion events to reflect the slow conversion of Albania and parts of Anatolia.
2) Having read the comments on this forum, I'm probably the only one to say so, but I find the Time of Troubles far too tame. I *never* get serious rebellions, and usually continue fighting wars during the Time of Troubles, though admittedly at a slower rate than before or after. My only problem is that my technological position continues to decline relative to my neighbors, but that's to be expected, and usually doesn't have a major impact on the game.
Probably the Kazakhs, but I tend to play Eurocentric games.
Even though I haven't yet started playing IGC 2.2 (yet), I do have a few suggestions for 2.3. Specifically, in another thread, you asked for help with the leaders for minors.
Specifically, I took a look at the leader and monarch lists for Wallachia and Moldavia. Most of the historical monarchs are missing, and the dip/mil/admin ratings are rather odd. Each country has only one leader.
In a seperate thread you asked for help in enlarging the leader lists for the minors. I'd be happy to provide you with a complete list of princes for both countries and to work on a leader list for each one.
That, however, raises a few questions:
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?
I'd also like to see the following changes to more accurately reflect
the historical situation:
1) In each of my games, AI controlled Wallachia takes advantage of its vasslage/alliance with the Ottomans to conquer extensive Persian and Mamluke provinces. This is historically inaccurate. Given the way that vassalage works in EU, I'd eliminate the Wallachian vassalage to the Ottomans.
2) Moldavia and Wallachia regularly exchanged monarchs (the positions were elective, like in Poland), had brothers as princes or even the same prince at the same time. Consequently, I'd favor seeing a very close Wallachian-Moldavian alliance (+180 or more) and vassalage(historically, either one can be the vassal, since the dominant principality switched, depending upon personalities of the two princes). I'm not concerned about annexation, since in OTL, Michael the Brave did briefly unify Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania. In a reasonable alternative history, Romanian unification could have stuck well before the 1800's.
3) During most of the period covered by this game, Bessarabia was a Moldavian province. At a minimum, Moldavia needs to have a CB on Bessarabia. You may want to consider giving it outright to Moldavia, while PL retains a CB shield to it.
4) I'd give both principalities CB to each others territories, since there were no nationalist rebellions under any of the historical cases of joint rule (that would include Dobrudja, Bujak and Bessarabia). I'd also consider giving CB to the Transylvania provinces (Transylvania, Banat and Maros). While one of them (Maros) had a Hungarian majority, the others were populated by ethnic Romanians, and that may help reflect the historical conflicts between the two principalities and Hungary. I wouldn't remove the Hungarian shields - these were contested provinces (even if Hungary usually ruled them), and to all the Romanian Ottoman provinces.
5) None of the Romanian provinces were ever annexed by the Turks precisely because of nationalist revolts. I'd strongly urge you to remove the Ottoman CB shields from Moldavia and Wallachia themselves. Instead, give the Ottomans a temporary CB lasting till 1792. That would reflect the historical reality of constant Romanian resistance to Ottoman imperialist designs far more accurately.
Moving to other areas of the IGC:
1) There are many Moslem provinces that should still be Orthodox in 1492, and some that were still Orthodox at least into the 1700's or even 1800's. [Speifically, all of the currently Molsem provinces in the Balkans, Smyrna and Trezebon.] There also were Orthodox majorities in Transylvania and Banat. If you want, you can give the Ottomans one or two more conversion events to reflect the slow conversion of Albania and parts of Anatolia.
2) Having read the comments on this forum, I'm probably the only one to say so, but I find the Time of Troubles far too tame. I *never* get serious rebellions, and usually continue fighting wars during the Time of Troubles, though admittedly at a slower rate than before or after. My only problem is that my technological position continues to decline relative to my neighbors, but that's to be expected, and usually doesn't have a major impact on the game.
Probably the Kazakhs, but I tend to play Eurocentric games.
I agree with much of what was written above with the exception of Bessarabia. The problem with Bessarabia in EU is that the name is horribly misplaced, located between the Dniestr and Dneipr rivers when in fact it is between the Prut and the Dniestr. The historical Bessarabia is already included in Moldovia province, and giving Moldovia a claim to a misnamed area of the southern Ukraine is unnecessary.
Originally posted by Chema_Cagi
In game terms, there was no actual rule of Spain by Felipe "the Beatiful". He died suddenly (in Flandres?) before being actually crowned, and his widow got really mad after his death (she kept speaking to the already rotting corpse of her husband for weeks, while it was being moved to Spain...quite creepy
Or at least so it is how I recall the history.
The special thing about mentioning Isabel and Fernando together it's because they were actually a mancomunity of kings (it was said "tanto monta, monta tanto Isabel como Fernando" ="it counts so much, so much counts Isabel as Fernando")
The marriage was a very intelligent political agreement between the kingdoms of Castilla and Aragon, ending with centuries of wars, but it was made clear that both kings were equally important and able to dictate laws to affect the partner kingdom.
Felipe I quite definitely made it to Spain and ruled there as King of Castilla for several months in 1506 before his untimely death. He and his wife tried their best to get to Spain after the death of Isabel in 1504, but they had difficulties in getting there and were even shipwrecked off the coast of England and spent several months as guests of Henry VII. He and Fernando certainly did not get along, as he made sure his father-in-law had nothing to do with the government of Castilla and was strictly confined to Aragon. Felipe's death and Juana's subsequent madness allowed Fernando to gain control of both kingdoms again.
- Yep
- I don't think the Uzbeks add anything to game, but otherwise, I suppose so, although I don't tend to worry about the Persians a whole lot.
- I would like to see Israel. (Can you make a province Protestant before the Reformation? If so, just make Judea reformed and put Israel in there, since Reformed seems to be closest to how the Jews are (good traders, high army morale over there as well). Give them a CB shield on the province directly south of Judea (Jerusalem is the city). Give all Moslem countries CBs on those two provinces, and set all Moslem relations with Israel at -200, perhaps -50 for all Christian countries.
Alexandre,
Very good suggestions for Moldavia and Wallachia. Most of them will certainly make their way into IGC 2.3.
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).
Very good suggestions for Moldavia and Wallachia. Most of them will certainly make their way into IGC 2.3.
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).