IGC 2.3 Discussion

[Savant]

On India

Despite the Moghul dominance of the subcontinent come 1600, I like the variety of cultures that are represented at the start. It also makes it more interesting in terms of coalition-formation. In any case, we are talking about really one of the Indian states.. the one immediately south of the Moghuls. The other did retain its independence beyond 1600 AFAIK.

But Moghul colonization just feels wierd and out of place given they have no contiguity with the colonies they establish. it's all piece-meal and so I also would disable the colonization setting. Just give them really bad relations with the empires south of them and some CB shields to direct their advance.

 

[Zagys]

Re: On India

Originally posted by Savant
Despite the Moghul dominance of the subcontinent come 1600, I like the variety of cultures that are represented at the start. It also makes it more interesting in terms of coalition-formation. In any case, we are talking about really one of the Indian states.. the one immediately south of the Moghuls. The other did retain its independence beyond 1600 AFAIK.

But Moghul colonization just feels wierd and out of place given they have no contiguity with the colonies they establish. it's all piece-meal and so I also would disable the colonization setting. Just give them really bad relations with the empires south of them and some CB shields to direct their advance.

The other Indian states should remain intact of course, but that doesn't mean that the Mughal empire can't be much larger. I'm talking about northern India, not all of India. Look at their territories in the Age of Enlightenment scenario, they should probably be a bit smaller than that though. They were already very large by the time the Europeans established a presence there, so they have to be large in the game if there is to be any sense of historical realism in the region.

 

[unmerged(4007)]

BiB,

As stated by another person on the other thread where you poted this response (copy and paste), the US Revolution was one of the most significant events in history. Regardless of whether or not you think some Americans are too "US-centered." It was the first time a colony threw off its former master through force of arms. And it created a significant New World power with the ambition and ability to expand.

Also, as I noted, a great many fantasy options and real options for revolts DO exist. Many of these had to have nations ADDED to the IGC in order for this to work. That's great, I love the IGC, and my hat's off to them.

But why can we not even have the OPTION for a revolt in the New World colonies when the flag alreay exists.

Especially since virtually everyone here complains about how dead the end-game of EU is now. You're telling me having to put down a full-fledged revolt in the New World wouldn't add a little spice to the end game of EU it doesn't necessarily have now?

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by shawng1
BiB,

As stated by another person on the other thread where you poted this response (copy and paste), the US Revolution was one of the most significant events in history. Regardless of whether or not you think some Americans are too "US-centered." It was the first time a colony threw off its former master through force of arms. And it created a significant New World power with the ambition and ability to expand.

Also, as I noted, a great many fantasy options and real options for revolts DO exist. Many of these had to have nations ADDED to the IGC in order for this to work. That's great, I love the IGC, and my hat's off to them.

But why can we not even have the OPTION for a revolt in the New World colonies when the flag alreay exists.

Especially since virtually everyone here complains about how dead the end-game of EU is now. You're telling me having to put down a full-fledged revolt in the New World wouldn't add a little spice to the end game of EU it doesn't necessarily have now?

As I said earlier the influence the US had on world affairs in the span on the game hardly can be called huge. Looking at it now from the current US it may be huge but we're talking 1492-1792 here (if people even ever get that far). IT may be significant based on what happened after 1792, xure, but that isn't a game issue.

"Regardless of whether or not you think some Americans are too "US-centered." " - What has this got to do with this discussion?

So a colony seceeded. So it got influential (hardly before 1792 ). It is significant for what happened with the US later (which very well might not have happened). So what ? New empires were formed in Asia, huge European wars were fought in this span and so on. I don't see the American Revolution as a key factor in the history of 1492-1792. Xure, later.

The only nation in the game that gets special revolt treatment are the Dutch. Their 80 year war for independence and their influence later on in this time span hardly can be compared to the American Revolution. They threw of the Spanish and went on to create aan empire that spanned the world and alreday decayed IN the span of the game. The US may have been a potential world power in 1792 but no more than Bayern was or so in 1492. The Dutch gets special treatment cuz they had a massive influence into how the world was shaped during the span of the game.

Game wise. The Dutch are a special events. Hardly sommink one just can add. Fuethermore colonies don't tend to revolt frequently and often are useless at revolting because not many rebel forces form (bit different with those 100 K Flanders rebels ). If u add rebel events to England, the whoel of the English empire gets them which shouldn't really be the case. So apart from them not being needed IMO, I also don't see how it's really possible A full fledged revolt in the end game ? Imagine 3K rebel armies running around fighting an English empire spanning half the globe

The option is there for them to revolt. Just like any other revolter in the game ranging from Serbia to Spain if they get annexed once. The same treatment as the superpowers of those days isn't that bad IMO

 

[State Machine]

Imagine 3K rebel armies running around fighting an English empire spanning half the globe

Not to different from what really happenned.

I agree with BiB (I haven't read the thread, though). The US revolution would be significant in game terms if the game system was much more sophisticated in diplomatic matters. The US revolution falls into the same category as all the dynastic wars that the game doesn't model.

The Neth revolt isn't handled very well by the computer (way too short - starts early, too?), but it gets the job done.

 

[unmerged(2970)]

Doomdark, so, taking into considerations the replies, what changes do you plan to implement for China?

(a) warmonger to 0,
(b) monarchs' diplomatic stats lowered to 2-3,
(c) land tech research costs increased,
(d) army maintenance costs increased, etc.

Maybe something else.

 

[Doomdark]

But why can we not even have the OPTION for a revolt in the New World colonies when the flag alreay exists.

The problem with the rare US appearance is twofold:

1) It is not possible to add special revolts like the Dutch struggle for independence; it is hardwired into the game.

2) Since you have to pick a capital for the nation that revolts, that province has to be colonized and, preferably, populous. This does not necessarily happen in any given game.

If it was at all possible, I would gladly force something like the Dutch revolt to happen.

 

[Doomdark]

Doomdark, so, taking into considerations the replies, what changes do you plan to implement for China?

(a) warmonger to 0,

Yep. Done that.

(b) monarchs' diplomatic stats lowered to 2-3,

Dip and adm lowered to 1. China is still too strong.

(c) land tech research costs increased,
(d) army maintenance costs increased, etc.

Can't do that for just one nation.

I've also added some harsh events for the Manchu invasions around 1644. Things are a little better, but still not quite satisfactory.

 

[Doomdark]

The IGC 2.3 is done, except for some balancing and the Korean shield graphics (Yes, Korea will be the nation added this time around.) The release is imminent, but there are still a few issues:

1) China. Works better now, but not well enough.
2) Poland. Too strong vs Russia. A real issue with few good solutions.
3) Iroquois. The more I think about them, the more I hate them. They do absolutely nothing and I doubt if I've ever seen the other AI nations conquer them. However, the tag itself is pretty useless.
4) The replacing of the core provinces with temporary CBs in the Balkans has resulted in a Turkey that is not very interested in expansion there. I might have to put a few core provinces back in, much as I hate it.
5) Gen. Suvorov made me aware of a way to introduce "permanent" nationalism in conquered provinces. This could be used for example in Ireland and the Dutch provinces to insure that no invader would ever have an easy time there. However, it could make the game too annoying. Dunno... What do you think?
6) I consider weakening the late (18th century) Swedish, Spanish and Polish monarchs to simulate the state of chaos and decay in these countries. However, such a move would not be much fun for human players...

In the meantime you can look forward to: Sardinia, Korea, Byzantium option (much like the Byzantine Saga), support for the 1520 starting date in the config tool, several fixed crash problems, Polish Cossack uprisings, and much more. This is frankly the largest IGC release in a long time.

 

[Vandelay]

Will you put Japanese CB´s on Korea?

Will Korea have the same limitations as China and Japan in terms of bailiffs etc. ?

/Vandelay

 

[Cockney]

Permiant nationalism sounds great for some areas, great work as usual dommie

 

[Dagfinn]

Domsdark

1. Permanent nationalism sounds good, but how do you make it happen?

2. Have you looked imto the ai files regarding colonizing, and have you perhaps given more countries their own ai file?

3. When will you releas it... (sorry couldnt help it)

 

[Doomdark]

Will you put Japanese CB´s on Korea?

Yes.

Permanent nationalism sounds good, but how do you make it happen?

Permanent nationalism can be implemented by setting the date a province was conquered sometime in the future. Thus, nationalism will not start to decrease until that date passes. So, if it is set to 1793...

Have you looked imto the ai files regarding colonizing, and have you perhaps given more countries their own ai file?

Yes of course. The IGC contains many changed or added ai files.

When will you releas it... (sorry couldnt help it)

Hopefully later today. I might release it as a "beta" though, since the changes are so extensive this time.

 

[Mohe]

Re: Ditto Vandelay

Originally posted by Savant


While the Ming Dynasty was supposedly inward looking, the Celestial Empire did not rest with respect to manipulating tributary states (any state on its borders). China was an expansionist power during the period of 1650-end game (Min and Manchu eras). They added Manchuria, Mongolia, Zungharia, Tibet and Formosa from the late 1600's-1700's and subsequently, Turkestan. They had considerable influence over Nepal, Burma, and Annam. Korea was a tributary state. They also defeated a Dutch squdron in the South China Sea during this time, so they weren't easy pickin's.

Yet, when they did encounter European powers post 1800, they were less resilient and though not easily bullied, they were forcibly overwhelmed. Russia was one of the great victors in the alledged "unequal treaties" that ensued and for which China is still seeking redress.

So, it seems hard choices have to be made. Let China remain a regional hegemon or neuter it so that Russia can realize its expansionist fate. Which is the lesser harm to historical fidelity?

Giving China a cb shield on what is today the southern extent of the Russian maritime province seems to be a good idea to the limited extent that what in EU is China is to a large degree the Manchu state, which was a combination of a northern semi nomadic steppe and forest empire (mostly permanent TI) and china (also with lots of permanent TI) the Manchu Qing state and the Russians weere in conflict in these particular provinces and in this time period at least the Chinese won, however... I think in every other case Chinese hegemony is not representable in EU terms, especially with all the permanent TI, the scaling problems with the map, and the gross impossibility of adding enough local enemies and / or simulating Chinese expansion.

 

[BiB]

As long as it doesn't effect the Dutch Revolt permanent trouble there sounds good Then again they shouldn't rebel against the Dutch

 

[unmerged(676)]

Doomie
Unfortunatly I still haven't found any early Choson symbol or crest. As time is running out I've made an "emergency" Korean shield & flag set. It's available for dl if you should need it.
I also uploaded the Aztecs and Moghuls

Jeremy

Originally posted by Doomdark
The IGC 2.3 is done, except for some balancing and the Korean shield graphics

 

[State Machine]

Doomie. Two low priority suggestions in regards to tax settings:
1) A number of people have experienced low levels of colonial fortifications at the "harder" tax stability settings. This reduces challange to players of colonial countries. I don't suggest a change, but perhaps some information in the readme to warn players about this.
2) IGC Config. The tax setting option causes the tax_stab file to allways be overwritten. This in inconvenient for players that use there own tax_stab file. Could you include a "do not overwrite" option on the dropdown control?

Cheers

 

[State Machine]

USA revolter

There is merit in some extra treatment of the USA revolt. However, my suggestion will probably not please advocates for a better chance of the USA coming into existence.

To restate the obvious, the odds of England being in the same colonial situation as it was in real life are rather long. However, if you suppose that some English colonial revolting impulse exists someplace in the world, and that France (at least) would support that, you could add the following to IGC:
1) Give England some extra revolt possibilities around 1776.
2) Give France a temporary CB against England around 1776.

The first point may give England some revolts, someplace, causing them discomfort. The second point may give France a change to empty its treasury fighting the English in support of the revolters. Both points might help USA revolters spring up (if the English have colonized there). I would at least modify the existing USA revolter time period back to the 1770's.

I personally don't care, but compared to other revolt situations, the game does not adequetly address a pretty serious event (in game terms) - namely that some prime colonial territory is no longer producing income for England, and that some major war activity occurred as a consequence.

 

[Dagfinn]

Doomsdark

About the 2.3beta:

I see that you edited the spain.ai area by adding haiti and cuba. But I dont think you will avoid the colonizing of the antillas before you delete the hole line saying caribean region should be prefered for colonizing.

Similar with the Moghul and Chinees ai files: they are both told to colonize whatever provinces in Asia.

I have mentioned this before :
I strongly suggest/beg you to do something about the russia.ai file so that Russia will colonize her own territory ( add scandinavia and eastern Europe to prefered region). You can have my russia.ai file if you are interested...

Btw. You are realy doing a outstanding job with providing us with your excelent work. Thank you very mutch...

 

[Doomdark]

Dagfinn,

But I have commented out the region line in the Spanish ai file...

I will update the Russian file too, but frankly Sweden and Denmark are none too good at colonizing northern Scandinavia either - and they have ai directions to do so.