• 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.
Uh, I'v downloade v2.3beta and opened spain.ai. and it says:
region = { carribean } :confused: :confused: :confused:

regarding colonizing scandinavia: I mostly think sweeden ai does a good job colonizing lappland and also finnmark and narvik when they are swedish.
 
Perhaps they're there and I've never seen them, but I've always wondered why the Iroquois, Aztec, and Incans are never hit by plagues to represent the almost 90% loss of population in the "New World"
 
Btw. Denmark doesent have their own ai file. Denmark colonizes after the default ai file, and thats probably why she doesent turn iceland, narvik and finnmark into cities.
 
Dagfinn,

The region line is commented out in 2.3 beta. I.e. the line is still there, but it will be ignored as a comment.

Denmark should have their own ai file. Will fix.
 
Request

Well now that I'v been hiding a while, I have a request:

Is it possibel to adjust the colourscales in the "COT view" ? As it is now it can someties be quite difficult to see the difference.
 
A couple notes on how IGC 2.3 beta is doing in the far east. and a suggestion for the Iriqois tag

1. Ayuthaya is much more agressive in colonizing, This certainly solves the problem of Mekong being left vacant when the Europeans arrive. However their seems to be no stopping them either. every available open territory had some sort of colony/tp in it by 1510. Including Taiwan. My suggestion would be to exclude Taiwan from Ayuthaya's map.

2. Korea: I do not know if this was the case with Granada, but Korea can not build armies (or fleets for that matter) Is this inherent with the Granada tag?

And one additional thought on the useless Iriquois tag that Doomdark was complaining about. Maybe it could be given to Cambodia which would include Mekong (no offense to any cambodians out there) but after the parial collapse of the Khmer empire in the 14th-15th centuries their was no really strong khmer state, yet using the Iriqois tag for the Khmer kingdoms would solve the problem of leaving Mekong vacant to be colonized and help Dai Viet to expand into Mekong (and possibly cambodia without using colonists)
 
1. Ayuthaya is much more agressive in colonizing, This certainly solves the problem of Mekong being left vacant when the Europeans arrive. However their seems to be no stopping them either. every available open territory had some sort of colony/tp in it by 1510. Including Taiwan. My suggestion would be to exclude Taiwan from Ayuthaya's map.

Hmm. I've not seen them colonize Taiwan. But as you say, that is easily fixed.

2. Korea: I do not know if this was the case with Granada, but Korea can not build armies (or fleets for that matter) Is this inherent with the Granada tag?

This is a bug. Thanks for catching it. (The reason is that I forgot to add a line to the BuildingCosts.)

And one additional thought on the useless Iriquois tag that Doomdark was complaining about. Maybe it could be given to Cambodia which would include Mekong (no offense to any cambodians out there) but after the parial collapse of the Khmer empire in the 14th-15th centuries their was no really strong khmer state, yet using the Iriqois tag for the Khmer kingdoms would solve the problem of leaving Mekong vacant to be colonized and help Dai Viet to expand into Mekong (and possibly cambodia without using colonists)

Sounds fine to me, except for the unit graphics. On the other hand, Korea has also got inappropriate unit graphics now. :) I think I will leave the Iriquois alone in 2.3 though.
 
Originally posted by McGuinn
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

I have been looking into the Korean "flag" and asked around, The best I could find was:

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/kr_hist.html

No real flag or crest from before the 1880s, though the Taeguk (yin yang) was a very widespread motif in Korea from at least the first millenium. It seems that whatever heraldry the Yi kings used was that given to the kings by the Imperial court in China. So the flag on Jeremy McGuinn's site seems about as good as any. The only (small)suggestion would be to remove the Mugung-hwa (flower) from behind the Taeguk.
 
Removing the Iroqois leaves no indigenous

opposition to British-French colonization in North America. The Iroqois are limited as to what they can do, but they have a good and unique sprite, occupy a key location on the continent between strong colonial powers, and make for interesting gameplay in that part of the world. Moreover, the civilizations in the new world should have more representation than just the Aztec and Inca. Much of American folklore, place names, and myths originate among these people. If they are non-actors, then I would rather something be done to energize them. Removing them from the game would seem an extreme over reaction and simply wrong for the sake of filling some small gap in SE Asia.
 
There already is an IGC option to play

a strong Germany.
 
savant,

I agree that the Iroqois represent the only solid bulwark against Euro expansion in North America, and thus should remain.

In fact, if people are upset that the Iro are too weak, then perhaps increasing their territory to include some of the Eastern Great Lakes (the Upper NY and lower Ontario region). A bit ahistorical, but reflecting the fact that they, along with the Huron, agreed in one thing, stopping the white man from destroying their way of life. This would slow down colonization a bit more, and thus also put the development of the North American colonies a bit more on a historical timeline.

State,

I like your idea, I think it is a good compromise actually given the game engine's setup right now. Perhaps give the Iroqouis a temporary CB against England in the 1750's to represent the rising tide of anti-"Yankee" sentiment among the Indian tribes. The French and Dutch, it seems to me, already have a better chance of colonizing provinces in Indian territories. So there is some reflection of historical Indian relations in the game engine already. This would seem to be a logical step from that. If the English aren't around, the Temp CB won't hurt, because they won't be able to reach them anyway. If they are, it serves to increase English discomfort in the New World with the natives (historical event) and increases the likelihood that the English may lose some NW provinces on the Eastern seaboard and trigger the Independence Revolt, thus satisfying some of our desire to see the US come into being.
 
why Cambodia should have the Iriquois tag more than the Iriquois

I have to say I agree the Iroquois are too weak, but I think with their current tag they are worse than too weak. They are a great way for the French/English/Dutch/what have you, to quickly gain cities all the way to Ohio (real Ohio I can't remember the name of the EU province) In every game I have played where I settled North America I just sent a small 10-5-3 army into the Iroquois and forcibly annexed them. Suddenly their towns turn into nice English/French/whatever cities and before I have even properly settled Manhattan I have a nice little empire on the great lakes.

I am a great admirer of the Iroquois Confederacy, and of the SE woodland Indians, the Maya and the Pueblo who were just as advanced if not more so until they were crippled by diseases before the English even showed up. But they should not be represented in the game in the way that the Aztecs and Inca are.

The Aztecs and the Inca empires were absorbed as going concerns. Spanish administration at the top just replacing the top level of these centralized states. The Aztec and even more so the Inca populations were used to taking orders from the center so it was no great change for the Spanish conquistadors to decapitate the central government and replace it with themselves.

The Iroquois, the Maya, and many others were civilized politically advanced and very very hard to conquer because they had no central government.

Think about it this way.

If an English army had driven deep into the Iroquois confederacy and knocked out the capital what good would it do them? Any leader who surrendered would not be able to speak for his own chiefs and warriors who had not been captured, let alone ALLIED tribes. There should be no way to capture the Iroquois state intact, because it was not a state but a very carefully designed alliance that did not compromise the essential sovereignty of its members.

As to the Maya who are wisely not included in EU, with their separate cities and centers they were not fully conquered until the beginning of this century.

I think expansion is made much slower by making it necessary to send colonist after colonist and fight uprising after uprising to advance one province at a time.

That is why I suggested that the Cambodians get the Iroquois tag. In Indochina (minus Laos) their needs to be some representation of the coherent and quite conquerable condition of the remnants of the Khmer empire. They should be conquerable intact.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, I just rediscovered that it is not a good idea to lengthen Sweden's vassalage to Denmark again (like I did in the beta). Denmark seems to pump money into Sweden to improve relations, resulting in the dreaded Swedish-Russian-Danish alliance. There is no good solution here, I think. The proper, historical vassalage should end in 1521 like in the GC, but then Denmark either annexes Sweden or gets her to join the Unholy Unhistorical Alliance. :(

Why must the relations of all AI nations continuously improve? Grrr.

As for the Iriquois, it might be possible to give them just a tiny little amount of colonial dynamism and core provinces along the coast to spice things up a bit... Hmm.

Excuse my ramblings.
 
John

You explained yourself well and you pose a strong argument viz-a-viz the game mechanics. I cannot dispute your characterization of these cultures/societies and the level of organization/centralization nor how poorly they are represented given AI/code limitations.

I just like them. I like them there and I like their sprite and I like the idea of nations forming a potential alliance with them. They also have a key role to play in the 7-years war. They are much more historically relevant to "Europa" Universalis than a Khmer regime.

I just like them too much to see them go and usually, when England and France are AI-controlled, they do not leave, but remain viable. It is when human-controlled nations encounter them that the human can run through them. But that is the case with every RotW country with but few exceptions.

My preference for them is not whimsical but is not supported by the fine analysis of game mechanics you have made.
 
But not all countries

Originally posted by Doomdark
Hmmm, I just rediscovered that it is not a good idea to lengthen Sweden's vassalage to Denmark again (like I did in the beta). Denmark seems to pump money into Sweden to improve relations, resulting in the dreaded Swedish-Russian-Danish alliance. There is no good solution here, I think. The proper, historical vassalage should end in 1521 like in the GC, but then Denmark either annexes Sweden or gets her to join the Unholy Unhistorical Alliance. :(

Why must the relations of all AI nations continuously improve? Grrr.

As for the Iriquois, it might be possible to give them just a tiny little amount of colonial dynamism and core provinces along the coast to spice things up a bit... Hmm.

Excuse my ramblings.

relations improve? Do they? I have seen relations systematically deteriorate despite gifts, alliances, and marriages. Is there some "toggle" in a file we do not know about that causes a "relation regression"?

Anyway, if that is the case with D_S_R, is it possible to change some of Sweden's (or one of the other nation's) relations with third-parties like The Order or Prussia? There is an algorithm at work here whereby a nation's relation to another is affected by its relations to others.

I'm rambling too me thinks.. must be somink goin on?
 
Now the game always crashes at January 1 1585 with England. There is nothing I can do to get past that date. It seems that some leaders show up on that date, so I'm thinking maybe there is a problem with the leader files or something. I'm not absolutely sure that it's the IGC causing this, but it seems likely.