-
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.
Started a game in 1520 last night. I noticed about half the Spanish provinces are unfortified! This can't be right ?! I mean, for example the Golden Horde, thos great fort builders, have level 1 forts everywhere at the very least. Level 4 colonies in Aden have forts. But half Spain would be unfortified? No wonder people always take Andalusia in 1492.
How about the fantasy settings of unified HRE and and to counter that nation an unified Italy? Make the HRE just somewat smaller than Germany is in these days just to make sure that it is not to powerfull.
Good stuff
Hey, this is my first post on these boards (although I've been lurking here since before the game came out) so first I'd just like to say hello and thank you to Doomdark, Hartmann, and everyone else responsible for the beautiful, on-going piece of work that is the IGC.
(and of course thanks to Paradox for the game itself
I just got 2.3 earlier today and have played up to 1560 or so using the head-jazzed Hedjaz. Although I have no comments specific to 2.3, I have noticed some continued non-historical oddities throughout most versions of the IGC.
By far the most common non-historical trend is Turkey's colonization of S. African provinces. This has been going on for a while - I think before the IGC - so it may have already been addressed, but has anyone yet discovered the cause of this?
While I'm think of Turkey, I also noticed (while in an alliance with them) that they have the tendency to continually launch wars, much more often than any other nation, and usually regardless of whether or not they have the resources to fight said war (often the Turks will have just had their armies decimated by Venice, Austria, Hungary, or PL and will launch a war with Persia when they have no armies in the east and can't afford to build any either).
Also, the Mughals seem to have an active interest in West Africa (I noticed this in 2.2 as well) - I assume they get maps from the Portuguese, but still, a little odd...
Well I'll post more later on, keep up the great work!!
Hey, this is my first post on these boards (although I've been lurking here since before the game came out) so first I'd just like to say hello and thank you to Doomdark, Hartmann, and everyone else responsible for the beautiful, on-going piece of work that is the IGC.
(and of course thanks to Paradox for the game itself
I just got 2.3 earlier today and have played up to 1560 or so using the head-jazzed Hedjaz. Although I have no comments specific to 2.3, I have noticed some continued non-historical oddities throughout most versions of the IGC.
By far the most common non-historical trend is Turkey's colonization of S. African provinces. This has been going on for a while - I think before the IGC - so it may have already been addressed, but has anyone yet discovered the cause of this?
While I'm think of Turkey, I also noticed (while in an alliance with them) that they have the tendency to continually launch wars, much more often than any other nation, and usually regardless of whether or not they have the resources to fight said war (often the Turks will have just had their armies decimated by Venice, Austria, Hungary, or PL and will launch a war with Persia when they have no armies in the east and can't afford to build any either).
Also, the Mughals seem to have an active interest in West Africa (I noticed this in 2.2 as well) - I assume they get maps from the Portuguese, but still, a little odd...
Well I'll post more later on, keep up the great work!!
Before I continue, I have to add my awe for your work, Doomsdark. My piddling scenario editing attempts are only inspired by the great work you and your partners have done with the IGC. Just slow down so can stick with one .inc file!
Is it possible to edit your IGCconfig file? Or would that be inappropriate? Basically I'd love to put my scenario options directly
on to the config file itself rather than backup and restore the .inc which I'm doing now. I'm utilizing a unified Germany (small part of it at least) and Italy (northern part actually minus Venice) and it'd be nice if I could design it so that the player could turn one, the other, or both off as they see fit. Thanks...
- Bob
Is it possible to edit your IGCconfig file? Or would that be inappropriate? Basically I'd love to put my scenario options directly
on to the config file itself rather than backup and restore the .inc which I'm doing now. I'm utilizing a unified Germany (small part of it at least) and Italy (northern part actually minus Venice) and it'd be nice if I could design it so that the player could turn one, the other, or both off as they see fit. Thanks...
- Bob
I am afraid not... You can edit what the options actually do by looking in our 1492_IGC.inc file and the IGC.dat file. The syntax should be pretty obvious. However, to add new options you would have to edit my little Java program...
I could of course make the Java program add options depending on what option tags people had added to the .inc file, which would be nice, but would still be limited to changes in that file.
That's ok then. As you do each version, sometimes I'll catch something I like, only to be missing from the next version. Of course, with that line of thinking, you'd have to have a colossal config file with over 100 options. Not much fun to make, is it?
Does Nippon use ships? I noticed in 2.3 beta that Nippon would declare war on Korea regularly but would never transport troops even though some were available in its ports. Oriental wars would be a great feature of these future updates if they could be balanced out. Thanks again!
- Bob
Not much fun to make, is it?Does Nippon use ships? I noticed in 2.3 beta that Nippon would declare war on Korea regularly but would never transport troops even though some were available in its ports. Oriental wars would be a great feature of these future updates if they could be balanced out. Thanks again!
- Bob
Hey Doomie,
Dito on the weakened Byzantium. Last night, I played as the byzantines on vh/fur, and along with Serbia, Wallahia, Moldavia, Georgia, Venice, and Mamelukes, fought a 10 year war againt Turkey. Whereas on 2.3beta we would carve through them like a knife through butter, this time it wasn't that easy. At the end of the war, all I managed was some money out of Turkey, and they still managed to snatch 2 from the Mamelukes. Much much tougher.
I do want to add some voice of concern about the Nippon-Korean wars. They break out all the time, but neither of the countries does anything.
Dito on the weakened Byzantium. Last night, I played as the byzantines on vh/fur, and along with Serbia, Wallahia, Moldavia, Georgia, Venice, and Mamelukes, fought a 10 year war againt Turkey. Whereas on 2.3beta we would carve through them like a knife through butter, this time it wasn't that easy. At the end of the war, all I managed was some money out of Turkey, and they still managed to snatch 2 from the Mamelukes. Much much tougher.
I do want to add some voice of concern about the Nippon-Korean wars. They break out all the time, but neither of the countries does anything.
My gut tells me that Korea
may not be so useful to include given both the arguments about its merits and its game behavior.
Some months ago the IGC had an extra tag and wasn't sure what to do with it at the time. The discussion went on for weeks aboiut which country/revolter should be assigned that tag. It was a good discussion, and the discussion about the merits of using that tag I think benefited from keeping it "tabled" for so long. In fact, I kept arguing that the tag stay tabled (bc I really liked the "action" as folks would educate each other of the merits of using the tag for one country or another). It almost seemed like a biodding war, but the bids were more than impassioned pleas, they were based on informational influence and so I (selfishly) benefited from the tag uncertainty.
I think the same could be said about Korea now. This tag could be, maybe should be, tabled upon Doomie's return if FB about Korea is repeatedly negative. Just including it for the sake of representing Asia more fully when it seems to add nothing to the game, seems too historically erudite at the cost of gamneplay. I think a better balance could be achieved using the tag elsewhere.
Pull Korea and table that tag!
may not be so useful to include given both the arguments about its merits and its game behavior.
Some months ago the IGC had an extra tag and wasn't sure what to do with it at the time. The discussion went on for weeks aboiut which country/revolter should be assigned that tag. It was a good discussion, and the discussion about the merits of using that tag I think benefited from keeping it "tabled" for so long. In fact, I kept arguing that the tag stay tabled (bc I really liked the "action" as folks would educate each other of the merits of using the tag for one country or another). It almost seemed like a biodding war, but the bids were more than impassioned pleas, they were based on informational influence and so I (selfishly) benefited from the tag uncertainty.
I think the same could be said about Korea now. This tag could be, maybe should be, tabled upon Doomie's return if FB about Korea is repeatedly negative. Just including it for the sake of representing Asia more fully when it seems to add nothing to the game, seems too historically erudite at the cost of gamneplay. I think a better balance could be achieved using the tag elsewhere.
Pull Korea and table that tag!
Re: IGC 2.4 Discussion
Can we get a unfied Austira-Hungary option. I still see this happen happen all too infrequently and it leaves Austria as a pitiful rump state. I know 1520 is 6 years too soon for the dual-monarchy but I'd rather that than having 200 years of Austria AND Hungary flailing about. I just want it as an option on the IGC config tool so I can play a game and be sure the A-H Empire will be there.
Originally posted by Doomdark
Well folks, just keep them suggestions acoming.
Can we get a unfied Austira-Hungary option. I still see this happen happen all too infrequently and it leaves Austria as a pitiful rump state. I know 1520 is 6 years too soon for the dual-monarchy but I'd rather that than having 200 years of Austria AND Hungary flailing about. I just want it as an option on the IGC config tool so I can play a game and be sure the A-H Empire will be there.
Korea must go...
I wholeheartedly agree with Savant and others who wish to see Korea go and the tag saved for later... I've played four full GCs since that country has been introduced, and well it adds about nothing to my games save for the occasional Nippon DoWs Korea msg...
tuna
I wholeheartedly agree with Savant and others who wish to see Korea go and the tag saved for later... I've played four full GCs since that country has been introduced, and well it adds about nothing to my games save for the occasional Nippon DoWs Korea msg...
tuna
Well, i finally got to 1648, and what i saw?
Only events increasing revolt risk for Poland-Lithuania.
I though new PL 'time of troubles' will leave long lasting impact on PL, so i suppose that some events lowering stability would be much better.
Only events increasing revolt risk for Poland-Lithuania.
I though new PL 'time of troubles' will leave long lasting impact on PL, so i suppose that some events lowering stability would be much better.
First, I want to basicly repeat what Savant and Tuna have already said - the addition
of Korea seems to have very little effect on the game. We already have a nice group
of nations in the Far East which react with one another sufficiently to make the game
interesting. While it may be for the best to keep the tag free while discussion
ensues, I'd like to suggest some possible modifications of the Americas.
Instead of having the Iriqouis in particular as a nation, we could have a larger
"nation" representing a plethora of native tribes from the eastern seaboard - the Alconquin,
the Huron, the Delaware, and so on - they would have some land that reached both the
Atlantic and the great lakes. In order to represent the fact that it wasn't one
unified nation but a large group of different tribes, perhaps something could be
done with revolts - the fact of disunity in this "nation" is of course a major problem
and aside from revolts, I haven't thought of a solution
Anyway, the reason I suggest this is that, while it will make colonization of
NA much harder, it will allow the new "nation" to take a more proactive role
in politics (as northeastern tribes did between the British and French). This
would also be done in combination with the addition of a new North American nation,
one representing various peoples of the plains (starting in the east, on the western
side of the great lakes with the fox and stretching west into the plains perhaps
even as far as Wyoming to include Sioux, Crow, Pawnee, etc..). While most of the
conflicts between Europeans and plains tribes only began towards the end of the
EU time period, the main reason for including a new nation would simply be to
add some dynamic to NA - some of the plains groups, such as the Pawnee, are thought
to have at one point (perhaps late 15th/early 16th century) been eastern woodlands
tribes who had relocated to the plains because of warfare - if the IGC was configured
such that parts of NA were constantly shifting between different groups of nations
it would add a more historical feel and certainly make playing in NA more interesting.
On a related note, it might be useful to add a nation to South or Central America
instead - the Aztecs were notorious for abusing their neighbors, and it was this
local discontent with them that greatly aided in Spain's rapid conquest - unfortunately
I'm pretty sure that these "neighbors" were all sorts of different peoples and that they
were subdued by the Spainish pretty quickly after the Aztecs were conquered - nonetheless,
the possibility of alliances or wars between S. American nations might make colonization
that much more interesting.
of Korea seems to have very little effect on the game. We already have a nice group
of nations in the Far East which react with one another sufficiently to make the game
interesting. While it may be for the best to keep the tag free while discussion
ensues, I'd like to suggest some possible modifications of the Americas.
Instead of having the Iriqouis in particular as a nation, we could have a larger
"nation" representing a plethora of native tribes from the eastern seaboard - the Alconquin,
the Huron, the Delaware, and so on - they would have some land that reached both the
Atlantic and the great lakes. In order to represent the fact that it wasn't one
unified nation but a large group of different tribes, perhaps something could be
done with revolts - the fact of disunity in this "nation" is of course a major problem
and aside from revolts, I haven't thought of a solution
Anyway, the reason I suggest this is that, while it will make colonization of
NA much harder, it will allow the new "nation" to take a more proactive role
in politics (as northeastern tribes did between the British and French). This
would also be done in combination with the addition of a new North American nation,
one representing various peoples of the plains (starting in the east, on the western
side of the great lakes with the fox and stretching west into the plains perhaps
even as far as Wyoming to include Sioux, Crow, Pawnee, etc..). While most of the
conflicts between Europeans and plains tribes only began towards the end of the
EU time period, the main reason for including a new nation would simply be to
add some dynamic to NA - some of the plains groups, such as the Pawnee, are thought
to have at one point (perhaps late 15th/early 16th century) been eastern woodlands
tribes who had relocated to the plains because of warfare - if the IGC was configured
such that parts of NA were constantly shifting between different groups of nations
it would add a more historical feel and certainly make playing in NA more interesting.
On a related note, it might be useful to add a nation to South or Central America
instead - the Aztecs were notorious for abusing their neighbors, and it was this
local discontent with them that greatly aided in Spain's rapid conquest - unfortunately
I'm pretty sure that these "neighbors" were all sorts of different peoples and that they
were subdued by the Spainish pretty quickly after the Aztecs were conquered - nonetheless,
the possibility of alliances or wars between S. American nations might make colonization
that much more interesting.
Colonialism
I have researched how the colonists.csv file works. See below for details. Also, see here for details on the issue and the research.
The following information is useful for evaluating whether colonization (i.e. the number of colonists) is as desired in the IGC, and for making future changes. Many changes have been made to colonists.csv to tweak colonization. I believe many of these changes are incorrect, now that the mechanism for colonists.csv is known.
How many colonists do you get a year?
1) 0 colonists unless you have a port, no matter what.
2) 1 colonist if you have a shipyard.
3) Religion. I tested all religions but Pagan.
* Catholic, Shia, and Shiite get no extra colonists
* CRC and Protestant (Lutherin) get 1 extra colonist
* Reformed gets 2 extra colonists
4) Getting a Conquistedor or Explorer gives 1 colonist when you get them.
5) And the big one. The combined values of colonists.csv and traders.csv are used. Basically, add the values together and divide by 100 (no remainder) and you get that number of additional colonists. There is absolutely no % chance involved. You get a fixed number of colonists based on this calculation - it never varies. The calculation is wierd, because some combinations that add up to exactly 100 (or 200, etc.) will not result in the expected number of colonists (it will be 1 less). I have tried all kinds of schemes to figure this quirk out, and none work. Multiples of 25 work.
Factors not involved in "how many" colonists there are:
1) Colonial dynamism tag. This is a calculated value by the game and always equals the result of the calculation in #5, above. It does not matter what this is set to, it will be changed by the game.
2) Stability.
3) "colonialnation" and "colonialattempts" tags in the scenario and save files. I was not able to determine what these do, though I recall posts from months ago indicating that first time colonization attempts are harder - I did not see this.
How to use colonists.csv and traders.csv
One thing is certain, tweaking the number of colonists requires both files to be taken into account, and no value that is not a multiple of 25 is very useful. And, it does not matter which file has any, or the larger values - all combinations work the same. Any combinations that do not add up to a multiple of 100 are useless (i.e. the excess will be thrown away).
A country need not be in both files. In fact it is a complication. There are questions about whether there are limits to how many countries can be in one of these files. If there is a limit, then I suggest keeping colonists.csv as is (i.e. what countries), and use traders.csv for new countries. Credit to Errant One for this suggestion! Note, a country does not need to be in this file, it will get colonists based on other factors like shipyards.
Why are there two files?
Who knows? I've tested and cannot find any use for the two files by the game. These files do not affect how likely the ai is to create a colony or create a TP. This is done via the ai files. The best theory is that these files were originally intended to support the colony vs. TP decision, and further, that the values in the file were percentages. However, the way the game works now, these files are used solely to calculate how many colonists are given per year.
To repeat, I am posting this here because changes to IGC for colonialism may not be working as intended.
I have researched how the colonists.csv file works. See below for details. Also, see here for details on the issue and the research.
The following information is useful for evaluating whether colonization (i.e. the number of colonists) is as desired in the IGC, and for making future changes. Many changes have been made to colonists.csv to tweak colonization. I believe many of these changes are incorrect, now that the mechanism for colonists.csv is known.
How many colonists do you get a year?
1) 0 colonists unless you have a port, no matter what.
2) 1 colonist if you have a shipyard.
3) Religion. I tested all religions but Pagan.
* Catholic, Shia, and Shiite get no extra colonists
* CRC and Protestant (Lutherin) get 1 extra colonist
* Reformed gets 2 extra colonists
4) Getting a Conquistedor or Explorer gives 1 colonist when you get them.
5) And the big one. The combined values of colonists.csv and traders.csv are used. Basically, add the values together and divide by 100 (no remainder) and you get that number of additional colonists. There is absolutely no % chance involved. You get a fixed number of colonists based on this calculation - it never varies. The calculation is wierd, because some combinations that add up to exactly 100 (or 200, etc.) will not result in the expected number of colonists (it will be 1 less). I have tried all kinds of schemes to figure this quirk out, and none work. Multiples of 25 work.
Factors not involved in "how many" colonists there are:
1) Colonial dynamism tag. This is a calculated value by the game and always equals the result of the calculation in #5, above. It does not matter what this is set to, it will be changed by the game.
2) Stability.
3) "colonialnation" and "colonialattempts" tags in the scenario and save files. I was not able to determine what these do, though I recall posts from months ago indicating that first time colonization attempts are harder - I did not see this.
How to use colonists.csv and traders.csv
One thing is certain, tweaking the number of colonists requires both files to be taken into account, and no value that is not a multiple of 25 is very useful. And, it does not matter which file has any, or the larger values - all combinations work the same. Any combinations that do not add up to a multiple of 100 are useless (i.e. the excess will be thrown away).
A country need not be in both files. In fact it is a complication. There are questions about whether there are limits to how many countries can be in one of these files. If there is a limit, then I suggest keeping colonists.csv as is (i.e. what countries), and use traders.csv for new countries. Credit to Errant One for this suggestion! Note, a country does not need to be in this file, it will get colonists based on other factors like shipyards.
Why are there two files?
Who knows? I've tested and cannot find any use for the two files by the game. These files do not affect how likely the ai is to create a colony or create a TP. This is done via the ai files. The best theory is that these files were originally intended to support the colony vs. TP decision, and further, that the values in the file were percentages. However, the way the game works now, these files are used solely to calculate how many colonists are given per year.
To repeat, I am posting this here because changes to IGC for colonialism may not be working as intended.
Last edited:
Great Job State. Maybe His Bib-ness would make a thread for this is the FAQ area if we bribed him
ErrantOne
ErrantOne
Very nice State!
A very complete and concise rendering of your discoveries.
That ought to be a big help right there. The remaining unknowns don't seem to be remotely significant to the effects you have accounted for.
A very complete and concise rendering of your discoveries.
That ought to be a big help right there. The remaining unknowns don't seem to be remotely significant to the effects you have accounted for.
And to give credit where it belongs
Moctezuma had it right all along. Now, if he did as much #$@&#&^$!! testing as I did and didn't bother reporting it I will...
I thing this is better material for Suvorov's FAQ site than a sticky thread - probably only scenario creators are interested.
"Hey sweetheart, come over here. Look, if you add the value in colonists.csv to traders.csv and divide by a 100 you get the number of colonists!"
"That's nice dear - go back to your game."
Moctezuma had it right all along. Now, if he did as much #$@&#&^$!! testing as I did and didn't bother reporting it I will...
I thing this is better material for Suvorov's FAQ site than a sticky thread - probably only scenario creators are interested.
"Hey sweetheart, come over here. Look, if you add the value in colonists.csv to traders.csv and divide by a 100 you get the number of colonists!"
"That's nice dear - go back to your game."
There are foure options I'd like to see, though still not sure abour Korea...
1) Great Britain, Scotland already part of England
2) Unified Germany (set the borders as modern except for Holstein); use the Brandenburg tag
3) Unified Italy except for Venice, we don't want to get rid of those dudes!
4) A fully united Netherlands, all 4 provinces instead of 2
And these shouldn't be too hard to implement. All it would require is some basic editing of the .inc. No tags or anything.
1) Great Britain, Scotland already part of England
2) Unified Germany (set the borders as modern except for Holstein); use the Brandenburg tag
3) Unified Italy except for Venice, we don't want to get rid of those dudes!
4) A fully united Netherlands, all 4 provinces instead of 2
And these shouldn't be too hard to implement. All it would require is some basic editing of the .inc. No tags or anything.