Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

IGC - the province thread

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
Originally posted by Hartmann


I *almost* agree. I don´t want to move Riga from Kurland to Livonia, because then it´s location on the map would be shown wrong. It´s correctly located now. I think I now indeed *will* make Kurland part of the Order, but the main reason is exactly that they owned the wealthy northern part with Riga and the CoT. Making Kurland a revolter would be easy to implement for me, but wouldn´t the precious tag be wasted by doing this? We have such nice other candidates for additional nations! :)

Hartmann
Click to expand...

I prefer to make Lithuinia-Belorus independent state from Poland. It was really independent in 1492 even dynastic union was re-formed at the begining of XVI c. And it lost her independence in 1569. It survives much longe then Golden Horder or other khanates. Of cause it was in very close alliance with Poland but actually infrastructure of Lithuinian goverment was removed al last in mid of XIX c. It it makes very interesting situation when Russia can unite all Rus lands without that bloody fighting with Poland.
 
Originally posted by Vandelay


As for a new nation using the old Kurland tag - it would have to be in'european style' to get the graphics right, right?

Mexico could be fun, but would it clash with the Aztecs? Would Mexico or Bolivia or whatever be realistic? I suck at Southamerican history...

What about a Hugenot France or revolutionary Republic of France? The Boers could be fun as well - they'd be no more anachronistic than a Free Greece.

My vote goes to a Boer Republic - based on one or two rebel provinces in southern Africa.

/Vandelay
Click to expand...

Yes, it would have to be European style but that´s no problem with Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and the Boer Republic (which is a nice idea also).
Mexico wouldn´t clash with the Aztecs as I would remove the Aztecs from revolt.txt. So once they are gone they wouldn´t show up again. If Mexico would be implemented, I would set the earliest possible starting date for Mexico in a way, that they will most probably not come *directly* from the Aztecs of course (which would be exhilarating :)). I´m not sure, whether having the capital in the same location could lead to crash problems, though. This would have to be clarified. Anyway the topic what to do with the KUR tag is still free for further discussion. :)

Hartmann
 
I prefer to make Lithuinia-Belorus independent state from Poland. It was really independent in 1492 even dynastic union was re-formed at the begining of XVI c. And it lost her independence in 1569. It survives much longe then Golden Horder or other khanates. Of cause it was in very close alliance with Poland but actually infrastructure of Lithuinian goverment was removed al last in mid of XIX c. It it makes very interesting situation when Russia can unite all Rus lands without that bloody fighting with Poland.
Click to expand...

This is an intriguing possibility if actually this state had dome independence in foreign policy. Would this L-B state be a vassal of Poland or an independent state? If a vassal, then may it align with other states or is that possibility too unrealistic bc of the P-L union?

I like your ideas about The Order and Kurland Mr. H. And I also tend to think the COT in Novgorod is not really appropriate bc after the taking of Novgorod, Muscovy went out of its way to plunder the area and suppress it as a potential economic force. I think that at the time, circa 1500, this was a very undeveloped region of the world and the two COTs (Danzig and Livonia) were the only significant entrepots in existence for the next 100 years. This is also why I delete the Swedish COT. It is too early by 1/2 the game era to include at the start. Novgorod is too late by the game era to include at all.

Seems that the HRE and this region of the world are the stickiest to deal with.
 
Players were increasingly concerned about the Northern European CoT situation (look at the French forum for a discussion). These are the problems:

- For similar reasons given by us in the readme for the addition of cots in Sweden
and Denmark one could justify adding a bunch of cots all over Europe.
- Greven said somewhere that the Sund toll is already represented in
that the province is slightly more wealthy than it otherwise should be
- The crowding of cots in the vicinity makes them poor and unattractive
for foreign merchants, especially the Hansa cot. The cots in Northern
Europe are at the moment only benefitting the actual owners.
- If a human player takes Denmark or Sweden and conquers the
Skandinavian and Baltic region, he can accumulate up to six cots. Other
nations don´t have that opportunity.

That´s why Doomie has approved of me removing the Swedish and Danish cot again for the next version IGC 1.6.

I already have removed Kurland and given the province to the Order. Therefore I also deprived them of their additional ducats in the starting treasury again. In my present 'beta' of IGC 1.6., Kurland is a country which can emerge through revolts. But we could use the tag otherwise.

Still waiting for suggestions... :)

Hartmann
 
Yea!

The Stockholm and Copenhaguen CoT's are goners - excellent! The danish king did earn shitloads of money from the tolls, though.

Now to diminish the extent of the Novgorodian CoT or to eliminate it completely? Dunno, it should be very much downsized at least.

How much would this hurt Russia? if it seriously upsets balance maybe another CoT should be within russian striking distance - Astrakhan, perhaps? It was the endpoint of the Northern Silk Route, I think. Or does a dynamic CoT show up in Eastern Russia post-colonization as it does in so many other areas?

BTW I'm not so sure about HRE and the Eastern Baltic being more complex - look at the situation in the border area between the Ottomans, Mamluks and Persians - lots of petty states and tribes that existed in 1492 but were destroyed very early on in the EU timeline.

I think it's just that we've chosen to be much more detailed about Northern Europe. We Eurocentrics are very bad people, I guess...

Have a good weekend (and don't play too much EU...),

Vandelay
 
Some random firings from the depths of my synapses:

1) I think that Sweden should also have Ingermanland as a core province, just like Russia and the Order. That way we can expect the appropriate wars to be fought over it.

2) With the removal of the Stockholm COT it once again becomes important to lobby Paradox to make sure that it appears correctly later, like the Anglia COT does. I have played Sweden through the GC almost a dozen times, and never seen the Stockholm COT appear even if I haven't conquered other COTs. This despite my having rich colonies all over the world.

3) Possible use for the Kurland tag: Assign it to Mecklenburg (as a revolter if the Hansa ever bites the dust.)

4) How to compensate Denmark for the loss of the Öresund toll?

5) I approve of a COT in Astrakhan. It has to be tested though, so that it does not draw too much trade from the one in Constantinople.

/Doomie
 
Originally posted by Doomdark
Some random firings from the depths of my synapses:

1) I think that Sweden should also have Ingermanland as a core province, just like Russia and the Order. That way we can expect the appropriate wars to be fought over it.

2) With the removal of the Stockholm COT it once again becomes important to lobby Paradox to make sure that it appears correctly later, like the Anglia COT does. I have played Sweden through the GC almost a dozen times, and never seen the Stockholm COT appear even if I haven't conquered other COTs. This despite my having rich colonies all over the world.

3) Possible use for the Kurland tag: Assign it to Mecklenburg (as a revolter if the Hansa ever bites the dust.)

4) How to compensate Denmark for the loss of the Öresund toll?

5) I approve of a COT in Astrakhan. It has to be tested though, so that it does not draw too much trade from the one in Constantinople.

/Doomie
Click to expand...

1) Will implement this asap.
2) You have my full support. :)
3) Only as a revolter? With HSA and KUR we could have both Bremen and Mecklenburg (if we wish)...
4) If I understood it right, it is already compensated by a slightly more wealthy Kopenhagen province.
5) Don´t know, but I´m a bit sceptical whether this will work. Generally I´m shy regarding the introduction of additional cots now ...

Hartmann
 
Riga

Originally posted by Hartmann


I *almost* agree. I don´t want to move Riga from Kurland to Livonia, because then it´s location on the map would be shown wrong. It´s correctly located now. <snip>

Hartmann
Click to expand...

Hi Hartmann!

Geograpically, Riga may have been part of Kurland, but historically the city followed with the province of Livonia into first Swedish (1629) and then Russian rule (1721). The border made a small detour around the city, you might say. Kurland was Polish - thus separate from Riga - until the first division of Poland (1763?), when the Russians took it.

On another note, An semi-independent Lithuania is an interesting idea. Sweden had some success with allying with the Lithuanians (though more as dissenting revolters I think) in the 17th cty. I've one reservation though: that Lithuania should not be taken from Poland too easily. Since it is a rather major weakening of Poland, maybe we should vassalize it to Poland at start?

Also, I'd like to say that I'm pretty certain that Jämtland was taken in 1658.

Rgds,
Johan
 
Last edited:
COT

Originally posted by Doomdark
Some random firings from the depths of my synapses:

<snip>

2) With the removal of the Stockholm COT it once again becomes important to lobby Paradox to make sure that it appears correctly later, like the Anglia COT does. I have played Sweden through the GC almost a dozen times, and never seen the Stockholm COT appear even if I haven't conquered other COTs. This despite my having rich colonies all over the world.

<snip>

4) How to compensate Denmark for the loss of the Öresund toll?

5) I approve of a COT in Astrakhan. It has to be tested though, so that it does not draw too much trade from the one in Constantinople.

/Doomie
Click to expand...

The Danish king was the richest in Europe in early 17th cty, I've heard. Could Denmark have a COT in Copenhagen which is dependent of their holding Skåne (lose the provinde, lose the COT)?

That could also be a trigger for a COT in Stockholm. This would give Skåne the the trade/political importance it should have.

Arkangelsk was an alternative to St Petersburg, and AFAIK lost importance after Peter the Great's foundation of S:t Petersburg.
 
Originally posted by Savant

I like your ideas about The Order and Kurland Mr. H. And I also tend to think the COT in Novgorod is not really appropriate bc after the taking of Novgorod, Muscovy went out of its way to plunder the area and suppress it as a potential economic force. I think that at the time, circa 1500, this was a very undeveloped region of the world and the two COTs (Danzig and Livonia) were the only significant entrepots in existence for the next 100 years. This is also why I delete the Swedish COT. It is too early by 1/2 the game era to include at the start. Novgorod is too late by the game era to include at all.
Click to expand...

I am really against of removing Novgorodian COT. Trade with Russia was very extensive during most of time (except Livonian War time 1558-1590). Of caose Novogorod was in decline and because of that better to put this COT in Moscow to represent Russian trade. At that time state control all the outside trade.
 
OK, here are some suggestions given 'what we know so far' *lol*.

- All you did so far with The Order, Kurland, and Ingria is fine
- Likewise, giving the COT in KUR to The Order seems right
- Removing the COTs from Denmark & Sweden are OK (especially the Swedish one seems awkward as is, but I agree with Doomie that it should have one appear like the one in Anglia). I like the trigger idea for Skane as well!
- reducing The Order's $ as a result of these changes seems appropo

Other changes:

1. Remove the Novgorod COT; though for play balance the argument to keep it may be that it is akin to a 'border state' that may be contested by The Order, Russia, and Sweden. It may be worthwhile to keep it if it is like a magnet for conflict. Also, if the IGC is keeping Novgorod as a potential rebellion state, then it might need the cash from the COT). Having it in Moscow makes it a non-starter for potential conflict, so I wouldn't favor that.
2. Remove the tag from KUR and hold it for something later that the IGC may need (for example, is Corsica gone? We just may need it for something else). Mecklenburg is OK too as the Hansa are already weakened a bit and fall prey to Brandenburg or Denmark anyway.
3. Hartmann get some food and walk away from the IGC for the weekend. But don't abandon the forum - we might yet have to pester you some more!

[BTW, I never figured out how Russia got those troops over to Africa but I didn't see any 'annexation' by Russia that could account for it. Perhaps it was an 'enthusiasm' event as you offered. I'll keep my eye out for anything that unusual and keep you posted]
 
Re: Riga

Originally posted by Johan43


Hi Hartmann!

Geograpically, Riga may have been part of Kurland, but historically the city followed with the province of Livonia into first Swedish (1629) and then Russian rule (1721). The border made a small detour around the city, you might say. Kurland was Polish - thus separate from Riga - until the first division of Poland (1763?), when the Russians took it.

<snip>

Also, I'd like to say that I'm pretty certain that Jämtland was taken in 1658.

Rgds,
Johan
Click to expand...

I'm going to reply to myself (sigh). I was wrong, Greven was right. Sweden received Jämtland in 1645.

I'd also like to point out that Riga was a city state prior to the order's collapse. While the rest of Livonia and Kurland belonged administratively to a province called Livonia (with territory belonging to the bishopric of Riga interspersed), was taken by the Poles in 1561, the city of Riga wasn't taken until 1582.

Finally I think it's right that the COT lies in Riga, and that some of the Russian trade goes that way when Novgorod declines. The Dvina was an important export route for Russian trade prior to PtG.

The Archangelsk route was opened by (the English?) sometime after the start of the campaign, with the stated intent of evading the taxes imposed on the Riga route.

Rgds,
Johan
 
Originally posted by Tanone


I prefer to make Lithuinia-Belorus independent state from Poland. It was really independent in 1492 even dynastic union was re-formed at the begining of XVI c. And it lost her independence in 1569. It survives much longe then Golden Horder or other khanates. Of cause it was in very close alliance with Poland but actually infrastructure of Lithuinian goverment was removed al last in mid of XIX c. It it makes very interesting situation when Russia can unite all Rus lands without that bloody fighting with Poland.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I have to disagre completely with the idea of Lithuania-Belarus being an independent state in 1492 or rathe with the idea of Lithuania being a separate independent country. Of course Polish-Lithuanian Commenwealth in 1492 was based on dynastic union and military and diplomatic alliance, but the ties binding both countries and both nations were of completely different nature than vassalage of Prussia by Poland-Lithuania or vassalages of Moldavia or Wallachia by either Turkey or Poland-Lithuania at various stages of history. I believe that within the framework of current game engine the only way to decribe the relation between Poland and Lithuania is to treat them as one country. Anything else is simply ahistorical.

I also totally disagee with the statement that Lithuania lost ts independence in 1569 as a result of the Lublin Union. The main goal of the Lublin Union was to reform various institution of the country fr them to really resemble the fact that Poland-Lithuania for many years is a single country. The Union was prepared and implemented by both Polish and Lithuanina nobles. And if you want a final proof here it is: to convince small minority of Lithuanian nobles who didn't like the new union, immediately before the final vote on the Union King Zygmunt August with his single, personal decision transfered roughly half of the territory of Lithuania to Poland. He did that to show them that Poland and Lithuania are indeed one unified country for a long time.

To sum it up I just wan't to repeat again' please stop dividing Poland and Lithuania into two countries in 1492. It condradicts history.
 
Re: Riga

Originally posted by Johan43


Hi Hartmann!

Geograpically, Riga may have been part of Kurland, but historically the city followed with the province of Livonia into first Swedish (1629) and then Russian rule (1721). The border made a small detour around the city, you might say. Kurland was Polish - thus separate from Riga - until the first division of Poland (1763?), when the Russians took it.

On another note, An semi-independent Lithuania is an interesting idea. Sweden had some success with allying with the Lithuanians (though more as dissenting revolters I think) in the 17th cty. I've one reservation though: that Lithuania should not be taken from Poland too easily. Since it is a rather major weakening of Poland, maybe we should vassalize it to Poland at start?

Also, I'd like to say that I'm pretty certain that Jämtland was taken in 1658.

Rgds,
Johan
Click to expand...

When you talk about Sweden successes in allying with Lithuanians in the 17th cty. you certainly refer to Janusz and Boguslaw Radziwill allying with Karl Gustaw X during his invasion of Poland. However that was mainly Radziwill clan policy - they actually wanted to carve a country for themselves out of Lithuania land (madmen indeed :mad: ). It can harly be seen as a proof of Lithuania independency drives. The situation during the invasion of 1655 was rely messy: several Poles sided with Karl Gustav (Opalinski family, even our future famous king Jan Sobieski briefly changed sides) and those divisions were very much along religious lines (Opalinski's and adziwill's were protestants). On the other hand there was strong anti Swedish resistance in Lthuania from the begining of the war led by other leading aristocratic families (Sapieha clan, and even catholic branch of Radziwill family).

I also have small correction: first division of Poland took place in 1772.
 
The Araucans

Throwing my 2 pesetas...

The araucans (or araucanians) were a tribe living south of the Incan empire. Neither the incas nor the spaniards were able to conquer this fierce people in the time span covered by EU, and several expeditions failed again and again.

They even had some well known chieftains, like Lautaro, Caupolicán and Colocolo, and there are reports of a standing army of 10000 warriors.

The araucans lived more or less in the two coastal provinces south of the Incan empire (Coquinto and Valparaíso, if I recall well).

They had a elected chief (or 'toqui') of all tribes, one for times of peace and one for times of war. I don't see them as having enough infrastructure to be depicted as a separated nation, but I think that these two provinces should have a larger and fiercer population, and/or perhaps a lower supply value, to make them a hard piece of cake.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01679b.htm

http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?ti=0001E000

Regards,
 
Originally posted by Johan43
The Archangelsk route was opened by (the English?) sometime after the start of the campaign, with the stated intent of evading the taxes imposed on the Riga route.
Click to expand...
This trade route was opened up by an English expedition under Richard Chancellor in 1553. However, since it wasn't very accessible, Ivan IV invaded Livonia in 1557 to obtain a more suitable trade route, leading to war with Poland and Sweden.
 
Originally posted by Dark Knight

This trade route was opened up by an English expedition under Richard Chancellor in 1553. However, since it wasn't very accessible, Ivan IV invaded Livonia in 1557 to obtain a more suitable trade route, leading to war with Poland and Sweden.
Click to expand...

Actually this rout was discovered from russian side in 1496 year by Grigori Istoma who sails from Khilmogory (near future Arkhangelsk to Danmark around Scandinavia). And I know facts about russian merchants which sailed around Scandinavia before 1553.
 
city names

Hartmann,

I know those are minor things, but they seem to be painfully ahistorical.

I noticed that quite a few provinces and cities have screwed up names.

Volgograd - is a Soviet name, even Tsaritsyn is Russian.
Historically its location corresponds roughly to what used to be a capital of Golden Horde we should rename it Sarai Berke.

Kazan for some strange reason have a city of Iaroslav, change it Kazan.

Sochi as part of Georgia. Province always and still goes under its normal name Abkhazi, Change the city to Schumi (present day Sukhumi)

Krementtjug - change the province name to Tavria.

Province of Kars is absolutely misplaced. Kars was a city in what is part of Trabzon.

Azerbaijan was known to be a lower part the country (we can change the name Kars to Azerbaijan)

Province with Baku which for some strange reason sits across Volga river from Astrakhan should in all honesty be called Dagestan. Actual Baku is a one province down, and that part was known as Shirvan.

Calais was a small enclave (2 towns) and definitely not that big. Where is Brabant and Brugges?

Actually all Siberian and Far East provinces with Soviet names are unacceptable. Especially Birobidjan - a centre/gulag for Soviet Jews :).

Crook
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back