The Turkey in my game seems somewhat hampered though. Xure, it's the same game but they never amount to anything in my games, so it could be a while 
-
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.
Another option for the IGC
Hey Hartmann,
for the next version of IGC ?
any chance of throwing in the free Transylvania starting option into the igcconfig, you could take away New Spain if u need to do it..?
just make it an option please.
I feel it better reflects the political situation in that area at the time, and will possibly only help Turkey. I know others share this opinion also...
Once again Thanks for all your work on the IGC.
Hey Hartmann,
for the next version of IGC ?
any chance of throwing in the free Transylvania starting option into the igcconfig, you could take away New Spain if u need to do it..?
just make it an option please.
I feel it better reflects the political situation in that area at the time, and will possibly only help Turkey. I know others share this opinion also...
Once again Thanks for all your work on the IGC.
Maybe. If there is a demand for it. Every new option takes time to implement though.
Don't know if this has been suggested, but for the US in the IGC, could you make them a colonial nation early on? The US was one of the most prolific colonizing states in history. And could you make the leaders appear at more reasonable times?
Granted it's less historic, but so is the US existing in 1492.
Granted it's less historic, but so is the US existing in 1492.
UnionBuster,
Yes, sure. The USA option is very rough as it stands. I think I will give them some dynamism for the next version (kind of hard for them to expand otherwise.) I guess I could slap together some early leaders too.
Yes, sure. The USA option is very rough as it stands. I think I will give them some dynamism for the next version (kind of hard for them to expand otherwise.
) I guess I could slap together some early leaders too.
You ICG guys...
Will you realease a ICG version compatible with patch 1.09 in time for the realease of 1.09?
Will you realease a ICG version compatible with patch 1.09 in time for the realease of 1.09?
Re: You ICG guys...
We already tested IGC 2.0k with 1.09. In fact, some of the features will only work correctly together with 1.09.
Hartmann
We already tested IGC 2.0k with 1.09. In fact, some of the features will only work correctly together with 1.09.
Hartmann
Maybe some clarification is in order: Transylvania is already in the IGC, but only as a revolter. The question is just if we should provide the option to have it independent in 1492.
I meant independent as an option in 1492.
Laurent had this in REU and I liked it a lot.
Laurent had this in REU and I liked it a lot.
Hartmann
What about the minor bugs regarding typos in the Russian tech, should we correct them ourselves or will you crank out an new version before the 17th anyways?
What about the minor bugs regarding typos in the Russian tech, should we correct them ourselves or will you crank out an new version before the 17th anyways?
Originally posted by Doomdark
UnionBuster,
Yes, sure. The USA option is very rough as it stands. I think I will give them some dynamism for the next version (kind of hard for them to expand otherwise.
Sweet, thanks. I was looking through the game file and it had quite a few leaders. The problem is that they almost all appear around the time the US should show up (1775-1776). Wouldn't you just have to change their dates of appearance/death?
There are a number of relatively minor problems I have come across, and thought I would group them all together in one post.
Ayuttha still has 677 (Malacca) as a national province and in revolt.txt, although it is no longer their province. (And never was historically, it belonged to Johore).
The city in Baluchistan (537) for Persia should be increased from 300 to 1001 at least. Attrition otherwise ends up leaving it uncontrolled in a few decades, when Persia controlled it for centuries.
National provinces for Persia should remove 538, 539, (Kalat/Indus) since they were Moghal areas.
Shouldn't Portugal have the Azores (823) added to their national provinces?
The Mughal's/MOG have as national provinces 539, 555, 556 (fine) but they are not listed in their known provinces. Should also add 538 (Kalat) to both known/national, as they controlled it later on.
The army for the Hedjaz/ARA, id = 704, is 10 cavalry. Should it be larger?
The units for the Knights (id = 740, 742) are "of S:t", should be "of St." in English.
The unit id = 966 should be spelled "Ethiopian Army" - forgot the i after the h.
Some are indeed minor, but perfection is a goal....
Ayuttha still has 677 (Malacca) as a national province and in revolt.txt, although it is no longer their province. (And never was historically, it belonged to Johore).
The city in Baluchistan (537) for Persia should be increased from 300 to 1001 at least. Attrition otherwise ends up leaving it uncontrolled in a few decades, when Persia controlled it for centuries.
National provinces for Persia should remove 538, 539, (Kalat/Indus) since they were Moghal areas.
Shouldn't Portugal have the Azores (823) added to their national provinces?
The Mughal's/MOG have as national provinces 539, 555, 556 (fine) but they are not listed in their known provinces. Should also add 538 (Kalat) to both known/national, as they controlled it later on.
The army for the Hedjaz/ARA, id = 704, is 10 cavalry. Should it be larger?
The units for the Knights (id = 740, 742) are "of S:t", should be "of St." in English.
The unit id = 966 should be spelled "Ethiopian Army" - forgot the i after the h.
Some are indeed minor,
but perfection is a goal.... 
IGCconfig....
Would it be possible for IGCconfig to allow the player to set values for colonists or other attibutes for the selected country?
Examples
*I setup to play a minor country that historically was not a colonial power, but I would like to play it as one. Allow the player to set a value to 1-6 colonists per year? Can you set it less then 1 per year within the game?
*Another item would be have a check box for leaders. IGCconfig scans for leaders of the country and creates a low skilled 'generic' general for the time period after the last leader is scheduled to die till 1792.
I tend to play only the very minor powers EU and these type of options would help them out quite a bit without everyone having to be expert at EU file mods.
I would like to say again. EU would be alot more boring if it was not for IGC. I love it! Keep up the great work.
Just a thought.
Christopher
Would it be possible for IGCconfig to allow the player to set values for colonists or other attibutes for the selected country?
Examples
*I setup to play a minor country that historically was not a colonial power, but I would like to play it as one. Allow the player to set a value to 1-6 colonists per year? Can you set it less then 1 per year within the game?
*Another item would be have a check box for leaders. IGCconfig scans for leaders of the country and creates a low skilled 'generic' general for the time period after the last leader is scheduled to die till 1792.
I tend to play only the very minor powers EU and these type of options would help them out quite a bit without everyone having to be expert at EU file mods.
I would like to say again. EU would be alot more boring if it was not for IGC. I love it! Keep up the great work.
Just a thought.
Christopher
These are good ideas
and what I think Doomie and Mr.H are mulling over. I don't intend to speak for them, but I think they might do something of the sort once specs can be worked out. I think that's what several of us are trying to do. You might want to look at two threads here that are related: one by Cunctator on trade/economy and one by me on proposed additional files to include.
I personally think the IGC will move toward looking at the mechanics of the game in terms of these details. As you know, most effort has been on getting the right nations, territories and the like represented. I think this was a smart choice too since it activated a lot of interest in the IGC. I don't think an initial focus on game "mechanics" would have much actuating potential.
I think also that.. and I am saying this as an observer.. that the IGC has been evolving in a very logical manner and expanding its scope as it has done so. Of course now that the game has become so popular and more people are confident with the interface, they want to be able to do more with it. I'd encourage you to tool around a bit with some of the files in the \db subdirectory as those are the most likely candidates for additional tweaks (at least the ones we can change as players). And if you come across some neat effects, please post them so we can all better understand the workings of EU.
and what I think Doomie and Mr.H are mulling over. I don't intend to speak for them, but I think they might do something of the sort once specs can be worked out. I think that's what several of us are trying to do. You might want to look at two threads here that are related: one by Cunctator on trade/economy and one by me on proposed additional files to include.
I personally think the IGC will move toward looking at the mechanics of the game in terms of these details. As you know, most effort has been on getting the right nations, territories and the like represented. I think this was a smart choice too since it activated a lot of interest in the IGC. I don't think an initial focus on game "mechanics" would have much actuating potential.
I think also that.. and I am saying this as an observer.. that the IGC has been evolving in a very logical manner and expanding its scope as it has done so. Of course now that the game has become so popular and more people are confident with the interface, they want to be able to do more with it. I'd encourage you to tool around a bit with some of the files in the \db subdirectory as those are the most likely candidates for additional tweaks (at least the ones we can change as players). And if you come across some neat effects, please post them so we can all better understand the workings of EU.
taking action...
After the first message was posted, I started tweaking the files for these two changes, but was heavly distracted by researching the Teutonic order's history.
Link to post:
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9781
The colonist thingy is not as easy as it look (at least so far), I have yet to get it working, but it is close.
The leader change, at least to the Teutonic Order (LAT) is straight forward and appears to be already done. (untested) on my system.
ErrantOne
After the first message was posted, I started tweaking the files for these two changes, but was heavly distracted by researching the Teutonic order's history.
Link to post:
http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9781
The colonist thingy is not as easy as it look (at least so far), I have yet to get it working, but it is close.
The leader change, at least to the Teutonic Order (LAT) is straight forward and appears to be already done. (untested) on my system.
ErrantOne
The post above about the Moghul Empire has brought to mind something I have ben meaning to ask for awhile. Is there any way of giving the Moghuls some colonial dynanism for the first 100 years or so of the game so that they will take control of the territories they historically controlled around 1700? I see that they have been given some as national provinces, but I have never seen them expand into them. Is there any way of doing this without giving them a seaport so that they won't ignore the lands right next to them they historically owned and instead colonize other continents?
I think a coastal province is the bare minimum
requirement. In fact, I know it is. So a nation like the Papal States that doesn't have a seaport can still by chance (random event) get some colonists. The Moghuls would at least have to posess a coastal province for even this to happen randomly.
If they are given a seaport, then they are guaranteed colonists on a yearly basis, at least one.
If you edited text.csv and gave the Moghuls a coastal province, they may by chance get some colonists. Then the question is, will they be successful in establishing colonies? And, who is to say they would do so in India?
requirement. In fact, I know it is. So a nation like the Papal States that doesn't have a seaport can still by chance (random event) get some colonists. The Moghuls would at least have to posess a coastal province for even this to happen randomly.
If they are given a seaport, then they are guaranteed colonists on a yearly basis, at least one.
If you edited text.csv and gave the Moghuls a coastal province, they may by chance get some colonists. Then the question is, will they be successful in establishing colonies? And, who is to say they would do so in India?
When EU patch 1.09 comes out this week, will it still be advisable to use IGC 2.0k?
Good Question. I know that Doom Dark was a play-tester for 1.09. My plan was to load 1.09
and then load IGC 2.0 thinking I would get the bug fixes that way but perhaps my logic is in error. Herr Kaiser?