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
Those suggestions are fine by me, but I was wondering, where can we conjure source material on how Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church would have performed as 'Monarchs'?

I was working off of Yannelis's list, which I then very painfully tried looking up. I found a good amount of data on them in general, but little about particular indaviduals. I would be more than happy to step aside and let someone else figure them.

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

[This message has been edited by GulFalco (edited 30-01-2001).]
 
Guess what? I just did the Greek monarch file. :) I used the Venitian one as a 'frame' (so I had not to type all those brackets etc. anew), thereby noticing, that at least compared to THEM, the Greek monarchs have comparably lower stats in almost all cases.

I used up Ids 2315-2341. I will need 2342 for the Ragusan 'rector'.

So the next possible value to use now is 2343.

Hartmann
 
On the Vietnam capitol question, if you want to see China victorious more often against them, then by all means place the capitol on the Chinese border.

------------------
History is a lie agreed upon. Napoleon
 
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
 
Somehow I knew things were not so limitless.
If Ethiopia cannot be Christian it shoud not be in the game, and Novgorod, another pathetic one province state to get gobbled up by Russia?
Also, Zulu is way better than Bantu, somebody give the word and I will pull out the books I got in 'Joburg'.

------------------
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).]

[This message has been edited by GulFalco (edited 30-01-2001).]
 
Originally posted by GulFalco:
On the Vietnam capitol question, if you want to see China victorious more often against them, then by all means place the capitol on the Chinese border.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, historically, that's where it was until the last couple of decades of the 18th century. But giving them that capital province vulnerability also addresses your earlier concerns about the Vietnamese becoming too strong, aside from the domestic instability question.

Alternatively, you could also give them good fortifications, which (having just checked) did exist.

Gives Hartmann a few things to play with so the Europeans when they do encounter the 'Prussia of the East' don't find that they've already turned the entire East red.
 
Somehow I knew things were not so limitless.If Ethiopia cannot be Christian it shoud not be in the game,
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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'.
Click to expand...

I give the word. :)

/Doomie
 
More on Hue from an encyclopedia:

At the city's heart, on the river's left bank, is the Chinese-style Vietnamese imperial citadel, Dai Noi, from which the Nguyen family controlled southern and central Vietnam from the mid-16th to the mid-20th century.

Hmm, mid 16th century, pretty sure that means 1500's!

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

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

'1) Entirely new nations can not be added.'

I know. :(

'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.'

Realised this also yesterday, that´s why I only use KAL and HEI. For all other additions I plan to remove an existing country, which wasn´t really there (like CYR). Btw:What is 'MUS' reserved for? Can it not be made functional?

'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.'

Right so, but as Greece is a revolter, I could use HEI for them and set the tech group to 'orthodox' nevertheless.

'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).'

I suspected this. A real letdown... :(

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

That´s why a careful replacing of countries should be in order. As I didn´t tackle the noneuropeans yet, there´s still time to think about an elegant solution...

'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 :).'

Yes, agreed. But the 'default leader name' quirk is a minor annoyance IMHO. I will ask Johan, whether something can be done here.

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

KAL - Novgorod
HEI - Greece/Constantinople'

Already have used HEI for Greece, so that´s fine. KAL is Ragusa in my version and I feel it´s a nice addition (as Novgorod would be, no doubt about this). We also have to consider, that Ragusa is already EXISTING from the start, whereas Novgorod would have to successfully rebel first. I think it´s good to have KAL/HEI used for one revolter and one 'starter'.

'BAN - Zulu. (Zulu feels cooler than Bantu. Quite subjective. :)'

Cool! :)

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

You´re reading my thoughts, Grandmaster Doomie! :)

'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.'

I tend to do so, but indeed, there´s the problem You mentioned. Another idea would of course be, to replace Nubia, which wasn´t there anymore at 1492. But I´d like to avoid this for gameplay reasons.

'Is Ragusa really so important?'

IMHO it is. :) You would prefer Novgorod instead?

Regards, Hartmann
 
Originally posted by GulFalco:
More on Hue from an encyclopedia:

At the city's heart, on the river's left bank, is the Chinese-style Vietnamese imperial citadel, Dai Noi, from which the Nguyen family controlled southern and central Vietnam from the mid-16th to the mid-20th century.

Hmm, mid 16th century, pretty sure that means 1500's!
Click to expand...


Aha, your South Vietnam sympathies become clear. ;) Yes, the Nguyen did rule south and central Vietnam from Hue, but the Le were still the official emperors of the entire country. And their capital was Hanoi.

---

'...Although we have been at times strong and at times weak, we have at no time lacked heroes...'
-- A Great Proclamation Upon the Pacification of the Wu by Nguyen Trai (1380-1442)
 
Yes, I would pick the more independent minded South Vietnamese over the Le emperors, who were little more than puppets, and who the Chinese considered their vassals. The only reason to use them as Vietnamese monarchs is for simplicity's sake.

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

[This message has been edited by GulFalco (edited 30-01-2001).]
 
It doesn't matter if Ethiopia has slower tech than the other Orthodox nations, since its reference would have to be the nearby Muslim states anyway, and the Copts in Africa, while slightly more wealthy, never exceeded the Muslims technologically, AFAIK.
On the Greek shield: Use the white cross on blue. It doesn't seem likely that revolters would be closely tied to the Byzantine Empire that late in history, and anyway, its territory would hardly include the core Byzantine provinces in any case.
 
Originally posted by Lubricus:
It doesn't matter if Ethiopia has slower tech than the other Orthodox nations, since its reference would have to be the nearby Muslim states anyway, and the Copts in Africa, while slightly more wealthy, never exceeded the Muslims technologically, AFAIK.
On the Greek shield: Use the white cross on blue. It doesn't seem likely that revolters would be closely tied to the Byzantine Empire that late in history, and anyway, its territory would hardly include the core Byzantine provinces in any case.
Click to expand...

This mirrors excactly my own thoughts on this matter. I hope McGuinn will provide the shields soon! :)

Hartmann
 
Big problems with Zulus, or all South African tribes for that matter, much of the history was oral and there are WAY TOO MANY tribal factions,maybe this was not such a good idea, things do not become clear until late 1600's, with the reign of Dobo 1, and Shaka Zulu does not come within the span of the game. Getting tired must rest, maybe I will find something.

Also, this Dobo character seems to be the only fellow who I found that could hold his own against the Europeans, the rest consistently lost. Should we put a state just so it can lose?

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

[This message has been edited by GulFalco (edited 30-01-2001).]
 
I dropped the idea of adding Ryazan. Originally I intended to replace Tripolitania with them, because

1) Tripolitania was at the time ruled by the Hafsids from Tunisia
2) Tripolitania is muslim and this would give us another muslim Khanate.

Now it turned out, that Ryazan, while still existing, was already ruled by orthodox puppet rulers and we have no orthodox nation to dispense with. Adding Ryazan was also never a first priority to me. ;)
I will change the name of Tunis to 'Hafsids' (or 'Hafsiden'), though. Also Tripolitania, if we retain it, should become a vassal of the Hafsids at least. Cyrenaica is a real goner, though. This province was Mameluke territory, no doubt about that.

Hartmann

[This message has been edited by Hartmann (edited 30-01-2001).]
 
GulFalco,
Should we put a state just so it can lose?
Click to expand...

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
 
IMHO it is. You would prefer Novgorod instead?
Click to expand...

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