"Improved Grand Campaign" Project

[Doomdark]

You´re right, but even when using all tricks (MER, KAL, ITA etc.), the number of minors addable without deleting others first is extremely limited. (And not all unused abbreviations work very well without major fumbling. E.g. KAL is nice, but for MER one has to add a new column and line to the diplomaticalmatrix, and for ITA there´s even no shields.)

Well, some nations in the game actually lack entries in the diplomatic matrix. For example, I am pretty sure that Norway is missing. I have no idea what the consequence is, but it would be logical to default to 0.

KAL is perfect to mod. In fact, I've used it in my 'Scandinavia Universalis' (soon to be seen on my EU site) scenario.

Still, there are some things that cannot be modified AFAIK. For example the values of the default leaders. How did you change the name of Irak btw?

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

Savant,

These appear to tilt the GC scenario a bit more than I would be comfortable with in that several of these could be achieved by Sweden later in the game without accelerating their position prior to the 16th century.

I am not too happy about all of the changes myself, but this patch was originally made by me for myself. E.g. I got frustrated by the lack of a Stockholm COT in the GC when one does exists in later campaigns. So a choice had to be made between a COT in Stockholm from the start or not at all. As for artillery costs, they cannot be changed dynamically either. Holstein's existence is merely historical and Oldenburg's population has nothing to do with Sweden at all.

ALso, wasn't there a thread that likened Sweden's forces to 'supermen'? So now Sweden has supermen and these advantages so early on?

I think that was someone playing Denmark who experienced the strange combat results of the 1.05 patch. It was the same for all nations. I suggest you try playing Sweden, particularily with 1.07. It's no walk in the park, I promise you.

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

Hartmann,

I think you should slow down a bit with adding the new nations and consider the options...

I played around with the odd left over nations yesterday and the results were disheartening:

1) Entirely new nations can not be added.

2) Of the strange leftover nations only KAL and HEI are fully functional. ITA and MER do not get diplomatic interaction even if you add them to the matrix. PIR, NAT, REB, MIN and MUS are in fact used by the game.

3) AFAIK, you can only set the tech group for nations that rebel. I have found no way to change the tech group in the .inc or .eug files. So HEI and KAL should be used for nations in the latin (Western European) sphere or nations elsewhere that may become independent during the game.

4) Default leader values may not be changed. I've not even managed to change their names, although the necessary file appears to exist in two places (DB/RandomLeaders.csv and DB/leaders/RandomLeaders.csv).

5) I've not managed to change the set of unit sprites for nations. That connection appears to exist in the code.

This gives us quite little room to maneuver. We must judge which nations that we feel are most important to add, and then use KAL and HEI for European nations (since they have the correct unit graphics). HEI could be a German state unless we can change the leader names. KAL will have the wrong leader names no matter what (unless we assign it to Finland .

I suggest (i.e. would like to see):

KAL - Novgorod
HEI - Greece/Constantinople

These may only exist if they rebel, so the tech group can be set to orthodox.

BAN - Zulu. (Zulu feels cooler than Bantu. Quite subjective.

MAH - Vietnam. (The Mahratti States don't feel as necessary.)

CYR - Ethiopia. This is not ideal, however, since Cyrenaica will never even be able to declare independence anymore. Also, it will mean that Ethiopia is placed in the muslim tech group with muslim unit graphics.

Is Ragusa really so important?

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

Somehow I knew things were not so limitless.If Ethiopia cannot be Christian it shoud not be in the game,

It may be Orthodox, no problem, but it will do research at the slower pace of nations in the 'muslim' technology group. Not a bad thing perhaps, when you think about it...

and Novgorod, another pathetic one province state to get gobbled up by Russia?

You misunderstood me. Novgorod would be added as a possible rebel state. It was already gobbled up by 1492.

Also, Zulu is way better than Bantu, somebody give the word and I will pull out the books I got in 'Joburg'.

I give the word.

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

GulFalco,

Should we put a state just so it can lose?

Well, I am not adverse to it. The Iriquois, Aztecs and Incas are pretty much fodder. Their function is mainly to slow expansion in the area, and when they eventually lose, to provide a strong base for the conqueror.

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

IMHO it is. You would prefer Novgorod instead?

Well, yes.

Mainly because I know very little of Ragusa, but also because Russia needs more problems with rebels. I would love to include Novgorod. Maybe we could dispense with Aragon, Catalonia or Provence?

Also, now that we have the chance, shouldn't we perhaps do something about the so called 'Royalists' and 'Huguenotts'? Those are not good names for nations IMO.

/Doomdark

 

[Doomdark]

Are there any other options we overlooked until now?

I am afraid not. Beyond KAL and HEI, we must drop a nation to gain a nation... Candidates for dropping:

Provence
Burgundy
Huguenotts
Royalists
Bretagne
Aragon
Catalonia
Granada
Corsica
Cyrenaica
Hansa
Sardinia
Sicily
Nubia
Tripolitania
Mahratti States
Bantu States

Candidates for addition:
Greece
Ragusa
Novgorod
Vietnam
Zulu
Ethiopia
Mecklemburg (if the Hansa is dropped)
Pommerania (if the Hansa is dropped)

I hate to lose nations, but if pressed I would chose to drop:
1)Mahratti States
2)Bantu States
3)Cyrenaica
4)Provence
5)Aragon
6)Corsica

I would like the Hansa replaced with Mecklemburg, Pommerania and Holstein. The trick is to get 'Pommerania' to convert to protestantism.

For the 'Royalists' I propose a name change to 'Parlamentarian England'. Cromwell was the rebel, after all.

'Protestant France' is good for the Huguenotts.

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

I think SHL should not be a possible revolter. It already belongs to a minor (and I never saw it revolt anyway), and it might be easily used for some other nation.

SHL is Holstein. It is not only a possible revolter but an existing minor in scenarios beginning later than 1492.
I like it.

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

Holstein was a Duchy since 1474, separate from Schleswig and in time a frequent ally of Sweden's. Pommerania was a Duchy until 1637 when it was granted to Brandenburg. Of course, Vorpommern (Western Pommerania) was already in the actual control of Sweden by this time, which was formalized in 1648.

I like these little Duchies more than the Hansa because the Hansa was in decline and had little military power by this time. Besides, it is was never a nation in the sense of the others in the game.

/Doomie

[This message has been edited by Doomdark (edited 30-01-2001).]

 

[Doomdark]

Well, I could be wrong about Pommerania, but as I said I do believe it was an independent Duchy until 1637.

IMO, the Hansa is way too powerful in the game compared to real history. It was a merchant league, period. Sometimes it fought naval battles to protect its mercantile interests, and it wielded great political punch, but it would never have dreamed of annexing Jylland (let alone have the power to do so) like it does so frequently in the game.

Holstein might be beefed up a little to protect it from the Dane, and it is probably a good idea to remove it as a Danish core province, but I think it definitely belongs in the GC. To a lesser degree, so do Pommerania and Mecklenburg.

Lastly, remember that after 1.06, annexing countries is a good way to increase your badboy value. Dramatically.

/Doomdark

 

[Doomdark]

Well, I am all for discussion... If the Hansa goes we must make sure that the replacements are well balanced. The Hansa should be in the game as a merchant presence only, but we can't have that without making it a nation. To be sure, the North German states were weaker than their southern cousins because their largest cities were controlled by the Hansa.

pcongre,

I was wrong about Aragon. It has to stay in the game.

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

I guess we still have lots of time to debate this matter

We have all the time in the world, although I will go on vacation next week. Time to visit my sugar plantations on fair Hispaniola...

Seriously, I am going to the Dominican Republic for some R&R.

About Aragon, are you saying that it was still independent in 1492?

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

I bring great news!

I have found another unused country that works perfectly: SPR. It appears to be some sort of Spanish rebel nation that never made it into the game. All you have to do is add some building costs and it will work.

So, Novgorod is not a problem anymore...

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

McGuinn,

Impressive work on the shields! Do you think you could do the shields and flag for Novgorod too? I hate working with 8 bit graphics.

I've been trying to find the appropriate coat of arms for Novgorod, and although the info is hard to come by it seems that the colors should be yellow and blue, a bit like the modern Ukrainian flag rotated 90 degrees to the right. The coat of arms show two black bears flanking a gilded throne with a red seat.
http://flags-by-swi.com/fotw/flags/ru-ngr.html

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

Doomdark, I think you may have spotted some Spanish Protestants...

I think you are right.

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

We should also put manufactuaries in some places, notably italy. by 1492 there would be art acadamies in venice and florence.

That's a very good suggestion. I will put them in when I incorporate Hartmann's latest round of changes.

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

So we should add Bretagne as a vassal of France right away, I think.

Hmm, well, as long as France doesn't get too weak to handle Spain. How much of Bretagne should we add; just Bretagne or also Armor and Morbihan? Greven?

/Doomie

 

[Doomdark]

Thank you for all the information Raphael, this will go a long way toward improving the game. My thoughts on the present issues:

1) On the Ak-Koyunlu issue, I urge caution for play balance reasons. Persia is a crucial balance to the Ottoman Turks. Weaken it, and the Ottomans might decide to expand eastward instead of northward.

2) On Provence, I assume it is only in the game as a nation to provide additional trouble for a low-stability France. I will not regret pulling the plug on it.

3) On the English Royalists, there are three ways they can be used IMO. They can become Wales, which feels unmotivated. They can be used for the royalist faction, but why should the royalists get new diplomatic relations and not the parlamentarians? Lastly, ROY can be used for the parlamentarians. But the parlamentarians held London, and Cromwell is in the English leader file. No perfect solution exists, but I would go with the parlamentarians.

4) On patching the text.csv file. We must get permission from Paradox to include this file in our patches, since it constitutes a de facto language patch. Otherwise, we'll have to include instructions on how to change it, or start using a true patching utility.

/Doomdark

 

[Johan]

Originally posted by Doomdark:
4) On patching the text.csv file. We must get permission from Paradox to include this file in our patches, since it constitutes a de facto language patch. Otherwise, we'll have to include instructions on how to change it, or start using a true patching utility.

Don't use text.csv in it please.

/Johan

 

[Doomdark]

Looking in the Province.csv the european provinces that usually get Cots (Anglia & Holland) has an 'uprgadable (sic!)' value of 1 and 'CoT Historical Modifier' of 5. Try changing stockholm (currently only 1 & 3) to this and see what happens.

Interesting... But I am afraid that these are hardcoded events.

/Doomie

[This message has been edited by Doomdark (edited 31-01-2001).]