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
Uzbeks: Their territory consists of 'neutral provinces' available to anyone with colonists. I would like to have a Central Asian power in the game, but I guess that won't happen.
Some of their land might be Terra Incognita, BTW.

[This message has been edited by Lubricus (edited 30-01-2001).]
 
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, can somebody put up a complete game map of the world in 1492? Uzbeks are definetly more worthy of inclusion than Zulu, but need full map before can determine territory.

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

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

Hmm... I for one could dispense with Provence and this would give us Ragusa AND Novgorod. But maybe there are still other options. Let´s hear, what the others have to say about this! :)
And indeed, 'Royalists' and 'Hugenottes' are not good names for nations. Maybe 'Royalist England' and 'Protestant France'? What would You suggest? :)

Hartmann
 
That's the problem I see with the Uzbecs: Their territory is at least partly Terra Incognita, which cannot be changed at all. :(
And I think that the Spanish and French revolters should be still in the game, because:
a) Spain is in every campaign the leader in VP (well, unless I have a lucky day as player)
b) France is one of the worst powermongers, and usually risks huge stability losses; those revolts slow it down.
 
Originally posted by GulFalco:
Is there a slot available for Uzbek? Preferably Moslem.
Click to expand...

We COULD use Tripolitania. On the other hand, You have to know, that there´s only a two province wide string of terra cognita from Sibir to the Pacific. So squeezing a country in there, would look quite weird. :(

Hartmann
 
Originally posted by daboese:
That's the problem I see with the Uzbecs: Their territory is at least partly Terra Incognita, which cannot be changed at all. :(
And I think that the Spanish and French revolters should be still in the game, because:
a) Spain is in every campaign the leader in VP (well, unless I have a lucky day as player)
b) France is one of the worst powermongers, and usually risks huge stability losses; those revolts slow it down.
Click to expand...

I would really like having Novgorod as a revolter, but not at the price of loosing Ragusa again. And I also want to have possible French/Spanish revolters. But as there are a bunch of these, maybe we could do without at least ONE of them?
Are there any other options we overlooked until now?

Hartmann
 
Originally posted by GulFalco:
Hey Dipo, why did you respond twice to the same post?
Click to expand...

Sorry, did it once before too. Still getting the hang of this program. So deleted the extra message and eliminated the clutter.

Agree with you that the Nguyen were a nice feisty bunch, but you see, the North has always been the rightful ruler of a unified Vietnam... ;)

---

'You will kill ten of our men, and we will kill one of yours. But even at those odds you will lose and I will win.'
-- Ho Chi Minh (1890-1969)

[This message has been edited by Dipo (edited 30-01-2001).]
 
Are there any other options we overlooked until now?
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

/Doomie
 
I see problems with Cromwell being the rebel, because London was behind him (as far as I know), and Anglia cannot change to the Parlamentaries as capital.
And, when in the GC in the beginning (that is what the GC is for), and although I am German, I think SHL is a country which could be dropped.
 
'Candidates for addition:
Greece
Ragusa
Novgorod
Vietnam
Zulu
Ethiopia
Mecklemburg (if the Hansa is dropped)
Pommerania (if the Hansa is dropped)'

Hmm, I´m pro-Hansa. :) Also, we would have to draw yet another country out of the hat, if we split it further. And was Pommerania an independent state at all? (I just ask, because I don´t know.) All the other proposed additions are great and already commonly agreed, I think.

'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 to keep Aragon and Corsica. Mahratti will become Vietnam, Cyrenaica will be Ethiopia and the Bantu will become the Zulu in our concept so far. So this would leave Provence for Novgorod, but I don´t know whether there are people, who will not like to have them dropped.

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

Should be discussed further.

'Protestant France' is good for the Huguenotts.

Agreed, then. :)

Hartmann



[This message has been edited by Hartmann (edited 30-01-2001).]
 
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).]
 
I am concerned that this would probably disturb the balance there badly. It would be quite easy for Denmark, once at war with Sweden, to annex Holstein... And Poland would easily annex Vorpommern, at least that early in the game (it is frequently annexing Kurland already)...
 
Originally posted by daboese:
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.
Click to expand...

Hm, as I live in Holstein, I might be a bit pre-occupied on the topic. The game map represents for Holstein almost all of what is today the German state of Schleswig-Holstein.

In 1460, Christian I. of denmark was elected Duke of Schleswig and Count of Holstein-Stormarn for granting that the local countied remained together (Op ewig ungedeeld - forever undivided) and local rights for self rule remained untouched. Schleswig-Holstein remained connected to Denmark till 1864. 1473, Holstein became a duchy. 1490 and 1544 the country was divided according to aristrocatic hereditary rights. The differences between the two ruling lines - Danish royalty and Dukes of Gottorf - lead to the Danish/Russian treaties in 1767-1773 which made the undivided Schleswig-Holstein part of Denmark and Norway. In 1848, when revolutions raged in Europe, S-H rose against Denmark, but was defeated in the Danish war of 1848-50. An international treaty solved the question of heritage questions concerning S-H should be solved (London, 1852) according to Denmark's desire. However, the Eider-Danish constitution of 1863 that contradicted guarantees of both Prussia and Austria lead to the German-Danish war in 1864, which lead to S-H becoming a part of Prussia. This was the first of three wars that lead to the foundation of the German Kaiserreich in 1871.

Of special interest for EU's gameplay would be the North Sea coast area of Dithmarschen. This area was comprised of towns, peasants and merchants that ruled themselves. The Ditmraschians are a very unique people, feeling a great desire for independence, and they even had a free state that was not beaten by Denmark until 1559. I think it is mainly these people (plus the Friesen that lived north of Dithmarschen) that are responsible for the high risk of revolt in Holstein in EU.

Also, a few battles of the 30 Years' War were waged in Holstein. In Itzehoe, where I live, Wallenstein's army prepared for the siege and capture of the (then Swedish) Glückstadt.

------------------
Attrition is not a strategy. Attrition is the apparent lack of strategy. (Sun Tzu)
 
Removing Holstein from the Hansa minor has been discussed in another thread, and I think it was generally agrred that it could be done only if the COT was moved to Bremen or Mecklemburg. Pommerania didn't exist as an independent state, AFAIK. Leave the rest of Hansa as it is, and make Holstein (which already exists) a separate country, possibly even a Danish vassal. While Hansa might not be an ideal approximation to the situation in those parts of Germany in the EU period, I consider it a lot better than giving independence to Pommerania. Besides, a lot of people would probably object to having even more German minors.
 
Given what I stated above, I think the idea of making Holstein a Danish vassal is a good idea, with the cot moved to Mecklenburg (the m in Mecklenburg in the game could be a typo), as this more accurately reflects the position of Lübeck, queen of the Hanse. (Lies today on the border between Mecklenburg and Holstein.)

------------------
Attrition is not a strategy. Attrition is the apparent lack of strategy. (Sun Tzu)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back