Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

"Improved Grand Campaign" Project

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
The number I gave was merely a combining of the listed army sizes for Prussia plus the Order/Lat


I'd like to see the references for these army sizes. Listed army sizes were _ALWAYS_ bigger than actual sizes of these armies. While its true during wartime they could swell up massively, in 1492 at peace time these sorts of numbers should not exist there.


'If East Prussia is really so 'Polish' in 1492, then why do I read about Order raids, FROM EAST PRUSSIA, into Poland into Albrecht heading the Order?

Heh, no need to get angry. Polish? It was a fief yes, but not exactly a very friendly one, if you're read this history, which I assume you have you'll know there were 3 major wars between the Poles and the Germans of the Order in the 15/16th centuries. Raids or no raids, the fact remains the map isn't 1/2 bad as it stands now.


'Polish suzerainity was far from friendly. Either Prussia alone is really a waste of a state. How about just giving it to Poland then?'

Of course it was far from friendly, it was far from friendly in the 16th, or the 17th centuries either. Giving it to Poland would be incorrect, a) because an entirely friendly vassal/fief whatever of Poland,
b) but nevertheless it was still under the control of the Poles, whether it was staunchly pro Polish or anti Polish.

Trust me the current system works as best as possible. Me and Greven have had arguments over the _EXTREMELY_ complex state of this area in 1492 over weeks and months and we came to the conclusion to keep it how it is right now.

HOWEVER, I'm all for adding those generals and monarchs you listed, those stats seem quite good as well.

One has to make a distinction between Prussia, & the Order. However, if you still see it as incorrect, then by all means edit the files yourself and do the necessary changes. That's why they're there, but don't expect to see any major changes in future official patches in regards to these provinces.

While I agree with you somewhat about the idea of an 'independent' Prussian state at this time, and your mention that it was only part of Brandenburg, its just not a convincing enough reason.. at least from what I've read on the subject :(

Sapura

[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 30-01-2001).]
 
I am not angry Sap, but you seem to be missing that the army size I listed is the combining of the EU GAME'S ARMY SIZES FOR PRU AND LAT, unless Hochmeister's page is wrong. If so, sorry.

Btw, I did not realize this was an 'official' change to the GC, I thought it was an ALTERNATIVE GC. With everybody's little changes in it.

I probably should also add that I edit my posts, and miss what you all have posted after I initially post them, bad habit sorry, just don't like to post over and over again, unfortunately many people do not seem to read past the last post. I guess I should be ready for that to happy with this one.

------------------
History is a lie agreed upon. Napoleon

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

[This message has been edited by GulFalco (edited 30-01-2001).]
 
Btw, I did not realize this was an 'official' change to the GC, I thought it was an ALTERNATIVE GC. With everybody's little changes in it.

Indeed, and more power to them. If it wasn't for knowledgable people like you guys all the little inconsistencies would never get fixed.

However, in this case, and believe me, I am _not_ happy about the situation with the Teutonic Order (for several reasons, including screw ups in the map and provinces), however on months of checking, doublechecking, playtesting and arguments with 1/2 a dozen people this was the best way to structure it.


Sap.
 
I cannot lie, I do have an agenda here, I would like to see many of the minors beefed up because the big powers seem to expand to quickly. When it comes to the Baltic, many do not realize that Russia was not to the sea by around 1500, as I have read in many games. This was so because of 'states' like the Teutonic Order.

I want the pace of the game to be slowed by things being harder, so we do not have to read anymore about games 'over' by 1700.

I saw this 'improved' GC as being one for players who want a real challenge with one of the GP, i.e., less pathetic little states, and more one that are hard to conquer. The computer's strength will always lie in passive defense, and I think of force allocation around that, not what a human player can do with it, beacause we all now players can win with ANYTHING.
------------------
History is a lie agreed upon. Napoleon

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

[This message has been edited by GulFalco (edited 30-01-2001).]
 
Originally posted by GulFalco:

Btw, I did not realize this was an 'official' change to the GC, I thought it was an ALTERNATIVE GC. With everybody's little changes in it.
Click to expand...

Of course, it´s not official, but an alternative GC. And again many thanx for the Greek monarch stats, I will implement them asap. :)
I propose, we come back to the baltics, when we have already done (most of) the other changes. I´m interested to hear then, what all the others will have to say about this issue before doing any changes. Would be best, if there could be some 'general agreement' reached.

Regards, Hartmann
 
'many do not realize that Russia was not to the sea by around 1500, as I have read in many games. This was so because of 'states' like the Teutonic Order.'


Actually, it took a heck of a lot longer for Russia to gain a decent access to the sea, through the efforts of Sweden, Poland and their baltic 'vassals', it took them hundreds of years. I too agree that minors should be slightly beefed up, no question about it and Doomies minor leaders/monarchs project is doing this, it is after all (at least from what I've heard) supported by Paradox. Heck, I'd have started doing it with Greven if we still had time to do it.


'I want the pace of the game to be slowed by things being harder, so we do not have to read anymore about games 'over' by 1700'

Well, I'v got my own thoughts about these people who whine about games being over by 1700, play the game historically and you'll find it a lot more worthy.

As for the Baltics, heck I'm not saying the original GC position of the whole thing is *absolutely* perfect, nor am I saying that your idea is crap, GulFalco. Since this IS an alternative GC, some people may like to see your changes done. Others may not agree with them, but they certainly should be allowed to have an alternative GC.

In my opinion, there's very little to be done with regards to the Baltic region in 1492..

Sapura
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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
 
Been reading on Ethiopia, now my book does not list 'Christian' names, but I will use the posted list and compare reign dates, also, I need to know if generals are needed, a few are worthy of inclusion as generals I will put an asterik,*, by;

Con.2*, DAM 4/3/4, I have listed as Eskender

David 2*, 3/2/5, Lebna Dengal

Claudius*, 3/3/5, Galawdewos

Sarsa Dengal*, 5/4/6, KICKED ASS!

Basilides, 4/5/4, closed country to west and
new capitol at GONDAR, 1640.

Iyasu I*, 4/3/6, Jesus campaigned alot

Iyasu II, 3/4/3, Jesus 2 who lost to Sudan

All other rulers before 1769 should be, 3/3/4
After that was a time of great inner turmoil and Ethiopia falls apart, thus 2/1/3.

------------------
History is a lie agreed upon. Napoleon

[This message has been edited by GulFalco (edited 30-01-2001).]
 
Thanx again, GulFalco! The monarch stats are not high, given that for monarchs they can go up to 9 (only 'Supermen' have this value, though.)
There I have a question: You KNOW that monarch stats can range up til 9, do You? In case You thought, that 6 is the highest value (because it is so with generals), then please give me adjusted suggestions asap (as I´have just begun to do a little typing during lunch break :)).

Regards Hartmann
 
I think they are fine, I was using the stats I have seen in other monarchs as my frame of refrence, and 5/5/5 seems to be slightly higher than the average I saw in the actual monarch files. I told Doomie I could help once I got hold of the Leader files, I am just imagining what I could help with once I actually have the game!
------------------
History is a lie agreed upon. Napoleon

[This message has been edited by GulFalco (edited 30-01-2001).]
 
Re Dai Viet shield and capital

I mentioned in an earlier post that the Nguyen colors might be acceptable (horizontal red stripe on yellow background, e.g. Tunisia tweaked, the purple replaced with red) until someone can suggest what the Later Le actually used.

The capital was indeed at Hanoi, but under Dai Viet, the city was known as Dong Do.

And I guess Dai Viet would have to have a permanent CB vs. China, too. :)

[This message has been edited by Dipo (edited 30-01-2001).]
 
I disagree, Hanoi would be too easily taken by the Chinese, besides the official capitol was Hue, and there was a heavily fortified wall just north of it for much of this period.

------------------
History is a lie agreed upon. Napoleon
 
FYI;

The Nguyen reinforced their natural defenses by constructing 2 huge walls across the main avenues of approach, north of the imperial city of Hue. The Truong-duc wall was 6 miles long and contained a camp for thounsands of troops. Also it blocked the Nhat-Le river. The Dong-hoi wall was 11 miles long and fortified with heavy cannons. The Trinh NEVER managed to break through these walls.

On the game map, the province, Tang Noah, would make more sense, and Vietnam could lose ground, without losing its capitol, but Hanoi should be the most valuable with the southern part 2nd in value.

------------------
History is a lie agreed upon. Napoleon

[This message has been edited by GulFalco (edited 30-01-2001).]
 
'Thanx again, GulFalco! The monarch stats are not high, given that for monarchs they can go up to 9 (only 'Supermen' have this value, though.)'


Alas, on average they are higher than the stats for monarchs of the major powers in the game.


Sapura
 
O.K. so what is the average GP monarch stat, and remember there are a number high monarchs that reign for a LONG time.

I have to admit I have more familiarity with the English, Swedish, Dutch, Austrian, and other German state's stats then those of other 'GP's.

------------------
History is a lie agreed upon. Napoleon

[This message has been edited by GulFalco (edited 30-01-2001).]
 
The Ethiopian colours were in use long before the country started using its current flag. The colours represented originally some religious symbols from the Coptic Orthodox church. So I guess using these colours would be quite all right. I don't know about the lion, though.
 
Originally posted by GulFalco:
I disagree, Hanoi would be too easily taken by the Chinese, besides the official capitol was Hue, and there was a heavily fortified wall just north of it for much of this period.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was wrong, the capital's name was not Dong Do but Dong Khinh. But it seems like it was still the city now known as Hanoi.

The Complete History of Dai Viet relates: 'In April of the Dinh Mui Year (1427), King Le Loi moved from the Bo De Palace to Dong Kinh (the Eastern Capital). He named his reign 'Thuan Thien' and the country 'Dai Viet' (Great Viet), and used Dong Kinh as the capital. On the 15th, he acceded to the throne in Dong Kinh, also known as Thang Long.

(Hanoi was also known as Thang Long, which if I remember correctly means Dragon Ascendant)

Not sure if it was fortified, but my guess is that it was since previous capitals on or near the site (eg Co Loa) had walls. Indeed the Chinese quite often tried to take Thang Long and sometimes succeeded.

Hue was the base for the Nguyen, and even then not officially their capital until 1687. You are correct, they did build a big wall against the Trinh, but the Le emperors still ruled from Dong Khinh/Thang Long/Hanoi. Hue became Vietnam's capital under the Tay Son and of course under the Nguyen dynasty.
 
Here is a piece of my frame of reference. From death of William 3 in 1702 to the bloodless revolution of 1747 that installed a distant relative of his as William 4. The Dutch were governed by the States General which oversaw Dutch descent from great power status, and yet they have a rating of 5/8/5, for a total of 18. Now that is fine with me, but if they can blow the dreams of unification, and then 15 for a ficticious Greece does not seem to high to me.

------------------
History is a lie agreed upon. Napoleon

[This message has been edited by GulFalco (edited 30-01-2001).]
 
edited suggestions..& ideas.


Joachim I 1492-1504 DAM 5/4/3
Pachomius I- 1503-1513 5/4/3

*Theoleptus I- 1513-1522(good one) 5/5/4
Jeremias I- 1522-1545(superb one) 5/5/5

*(there's quite a small difference between superb and 'good' monarchs which you have proposed here, and even more so when compared to the 'average' here. I propose you find a few 'TOP OF THE LINE' monarchs and give them significantly higher stats, based upon their achievements, and LOWER each of the 'CASUAL' monarchs by between 1-3 points overall for each of their culmative stats.

Dionysius II-1545-1555 3/4/4
Josaph 1555-1565 4/3/4

Metrophanes III- 1565-1580 4/4/4
Jeremias II Tranos 1580-1595 4/4/4
Matthew II 1595-1603 4/4/4
Neophytus II 1603-1612 4/4/4
Rapheal II 1603-1607 4/4/4
Timotheus 1607-1620 4/4/4

(these ones here from Metrophanes to Timotheus, need to be edited, I mean all 4/4/4 ? I'm not saying those are high stats, but someone should research them a bit more). On AVERAGE they DO seem to be too high though..

Cyril I Lucaris 1620-1638(really bad)2/2/1

Cyril II Kontares 1638-1644 5/5/5 changed to e.g. (4/4/3)

Parthenius II 1644-1651 5/5/5
Joaniccus II 1651-1656 5/5/5
Parthenius IV 1656-1685 5/5/5
Dionysius IV Muselimes 1685-1694 5/5/5
Gabriel III 1694-1707 5/5/5
Cyprianus I 1707-1714 5/5/5
Jeremias III 1714-1733 5/5/5
Paisius II 1733-1748 5/5/5
Cyril V 1748-1757 5/5/5
Samuel I Chatzeres 1757-1774 5/5/5
Sophoronius II 1774-1780 5/5/5
Gabriel IV 1780-1785 5/5/5
Procopius I 1785-1789 5/5/5
Neophytus VIII 1789-1792 5/5/5


Same with all these 5's .. need more research. If were going to be going PURELY by 'averages' here, then most of them would be at about 4/3/4 or somewhere around there. These's 5/5/5's are just too uniform. I'm not even going to BEGIN grading all of them unless I know a bit more about them.


Also Greek generals default..

Change from 2/1/1/0 to 1/2/1/0 ..or 1/2/0/0.

One has to try ones best, being as historically accurate as possible, yet keeping gamebalance in perspective.

Sapura


[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 30-01-2001).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back