• 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.
Originally posted by tuna
The Arabic name for the city was Konstantiniyye (the city of Constantine) and the Ottoman Turks adopted that version. Yet in official documents (which used Ottoman Turkish--a hybrid Turkic, Persian, Arabic language that modern Turkish speakers can not comprehend), the city was often referred to as Dar-ul-saadet (Place/Door of Happiness)
There are quite a few more names for Istanbul and quite frankly, I'm ok with Constantinople since that was how it was known to the city's Christian population as well as all Westerners. On the other hand, Konstantiniyye or Dar-ul-Saadet are equally correct... Dunno, why not call it the Third Rome? :) j/k

Hope that helps,
Tuna

Mainly because this name is already used by Moscow.
 
Folks, it was hard work (but funny) to implement this seemingly innocent dropping of Kurland. At first, the Order behaved extremely agressive then, declaring war to Prussia at once and annexing them. After this, Poland, Sweden, Denmark and Russia declared war to the Order and partitioned it by 1501, wheee..
In my second try I improved relations to Prussia a bit and gave Prussia Festung Marienburg (level 2 fortress) and 10k army. In this setting the order immediately attacked ... Pskov! After annexing Pskov everyone and his grandma declared war to the Order partitioning it in the end. Again Sweden and Poland got their share.
In my third try I allied Pskov with Russia (should be so anyway) and the Order with Prussia. Now everything worked out quite nicely, the Order not freaking out. In the first war against Poland it lost Kurland, but Prussia stayed unannexed this time getting away with indemnities. I´m quite content now. I also removed the CoTs in Stockholm and Kopenhagen, which is good, leading to more activity in the other CoTs. I´ll definitely leave Novgorod CoT in place, because Russia needs it bad.

If I now only knew, whether I should implement Mecklenburg and Bremen or leave it with rebellious Kurland, I could issue 1.6 soon....

Hartmann
 
In this setting the order immediately attacked ... Pskov! After annexing Pskov everyone and his grandma declared war to the Order partitioning it in the end.

Those are NICE !!! I like that! That is really quite encouraging! And as Pskov is a vassal of Russia they are fuming and the Bad Boy effect goes into full swing with neighbors! Just as it should with the Knights.

As to the KUR tag, I still think you ought to hold it. Issue 1.6 as is with these changes. They are good! And, hold the tag unless you happen to want to use them all and end the IGC? Is there a pressing reason to use this last tag? I think it's likley there will be another occassion for having a free tag.
 
So You think I should go with the second model for the Order? Hmm, but this seemed too much action for me. The order always attacks in the beginning and when having annexed Pskov, it is attacked and partitioned. In this setting they are highly unlikely to hold their own even five years beyond 1500.
That´s why I chose the third setting. The alliances seem to hold the order in check: The knigths don´t attack Prussia, because it´s an ally, and they don´t attack Pskov, because they know Pskov will tell it to the 'big brother' over there...
About the alliance Prussia/Order: Greven said, that Prussia and the Order didn´t like each other. Hmm, seems that it´s more that certain historical individuals (grandmasters) at a specific time didn´t like each other. But I think one cannot because of this make the overall relations between those countries as such that bad. Relations mean more than personal likings/dislikings. They e.g. also should tell us, whether one side would try to help the other out if it´s threatend to be extinguished. As the Livonian and the Prussian part of the Order were amalgamed, they wouldn´t have stood by and simply watched the other part go down the drain ...
The downside of allying Prussia and the Order in former versions was, that Prussia was always annexed by Poland. This is now not anymore *always* the case. The downside, though, is that the order isn´t free to ally with the Hansa alliance anymore, which would also be quite nice. Before issueing I´ll try another variant setting without alliance. But the Order mustn´t attack Prussia all the time...
Maybe I´ll release the version then without using the last tag, but I´m not yet sure... Even when we have implemented all tags, there´s still so much left for us to do! :)

Hartmann
 
Hmm, but this seemed too much action for me. The order always attacks in the beginning and when having annexed Pskov, it is attacked and partitioned. In this setting they are highly unlikely to hold their own even five years beyond 1500 .

Yes, I see your point now. We didn't want them to go bankrupt too soon and be a non-starter and there is no point they perish in 1500 either due to being ganged up on. OK, so I got a little excited!! :)
 
I have changed names of random russian leaders.
Changes should be made in file in leaders folder.

here is list:

RUS;Dolgorukov
RUS;Shafirov
RUS;Basmanov
RUS;Rasianowsky
RUS;Berelowitch
RUS;Yagujiinski
RUS;Kurbatov
RUS;Golovkin
RUS;Iurev
RUS;Ignatiev
RUS;Natchokin
RUS;Pojarski
RUS;Pushkin
RUS;Lapunov
RUS;Trubetskoi
RUS;Zarutski
RUS;Golytsin
RUS;Shuiski
RUS;Mstislavski
RUS;Buturlin
RUS;Obolenskiy
RUS;Odoevskiy
RUS;Pokrowski
RUS;Zvenigiridskiy
RUS;Bikov
RUS;Viljyaminov
RUS;Viskovatiy
RUS;Adashev
RUS;Golenitchev
RUS;Gorin
RUS;Belski
RUS;Glinski
RUS;Dashkov
RUS;Kantemirov
RUS;Sumarokov
RUS;Dulov
RUS;Bolhovskiy
RUS;Razumovski
RUS;Chuvalov
RUS;Vorontsov
RUS;Baryatinskiy
RUS;Gagarin
RUS;Volkonskiy
RUS;Panin
RUS;Karpovitch
RUS;Zasekin
RUS;Serebryanniy
RUS;Zolotoy
RUS;Tatishev
RUS;Shterbatov
RUS;Kurakin
RUS;Bobrov
RUS;Karpenski
RUS;Suvorin
RUS;L'vov
RUS;Likov
RUS;Mosalskiy
RUS;Koltsov-Mosalskiy
RUS;Nozdrevatiy
RUS;Penkov
RUS;Shenyatev
RUS;Repnin
RUS;Shuyskiy
RUS;Karpenko
RUS;Telyatevskiy
RUS;Mikulinskiy
RUS;Troekurov
RUS;Tulupov
RUS;Tuchkov
RUS;Uvarov
RUS;Hilkov
RUS;Hovanskiy
RUS;Holmskiy
RUS;Hotetovskiy
RUS;Cherkasskiy
RUS;Sheleshpanskiy
RUS;Sherementjev
RUS;Tchepin
RUS;Glebov
RUS;Yusupov
RUS;Metcherskiy
RUS;Bashmakov
RUS;Chelyadin
RUS;Bezumov
RUS;Bestuzhev
RUS;Vnukov
RUS;Vorontcov
RUS;Tcherbatov
RUS;Gryazniy
RUS;Durov
RUS;Iyevlev
RUS;Koryakin
RUS;Neplyuev
RUS;Sidorov
RUS;Orlov
RUS;Yakovlev
RUS;Yahontov
RUS;Moskvitin
RUS;Lobanov
RUS;Rostovskiy
 
I will include this change. :)

Tanone, I have two questions:

1.) I take it that You are now working on the Russian leader-file. Or are You working on the monarch file, too? I ask, because I don´t know whether I should implement those monarch suggestions for replacing 'boyar' by myself or not.
2.) You said, the Polish leader file needs work. Could You elaborate a bit on this? Just some days before You came to our board, Sapura (Polish betatester and moderator) left for the army. He is very knowledgable in polish history and has made that leader file of which he was proud. So I´m a little nervous about changing it. At least we should have everything explained in detail.

Regards, Hartmann
 
Originally posted by Hartmann
I will include this change. :)
1.) I take it that You are now working on the Russian leader-file. Or are You working on the monarch file, too? I ask, because I don´t know whether I should implement those monarch suggestions for replacing 'boyar' by myself or not.

Monarch file is OK. Just some spelling need to be corrected and ofcause this regents which I have sugested.
2.) You said, the Polish leader file needs work. Could You elaborate a bit on this? Just some days before You came to our board, Sapura (Polish betatester and moderator) left for the army. He is very knowledgable in polish history and has made that leader file of which he was proud. So I´m a little nervous about changing it. At least we should have everything explained in detail.

Regards, Hartmann

Hm. Actually there are so many polish general which was left aside (most of them was quite good one). But I have found them in descriptions of Polish-Russian wars. Mainly I am trying to remade russian leaders file of cause. But if Russia will have quite a lot new leaders then Poland should have too, to have balance.

Anyway its up to you to add them or not.

I have made testing of separated Poland and Lithuinia. I have played 3 games. In first two games Poland was annexed (in first by France, in second by Austria) but after addition of Poland-Lithuinian allaince and rising of polish aggression rating in 3rd game Poland survied and was very powerfull. Actually second game could not be used as example because Austria have inherited Hungary and was really powerfull.
 
Lithuinia mainly takes place of current Poland-Lithuinia and is very powerfull country. Actually expantion of divided contry divided in 2 directions. Poland to the West and North (Baltic and Germany) and Lithuinia to the East and South. As minor countries they shows very good results.
 
Major changes proposal : dynastic unions

I was thinking about something and I want to propose the idea.

As the main reason why we don't want to implement big changes about major powers is playbalance, maybe we could implement changes for all of them (in fact, not really all, but I will give some explanations) ?

------------------------------

1/ As far as I know, Eire should be separated from England. The only part of Eire which was under real suzerainty of England was Dublin region, called Pale, actually a small part of Leinster province.

You can find a map of the situation in 1500 at http://www.livgenmi.com/gardiner21.htm

You can also find informations about this situation on this page http://www.fortunecity.com/bally/kilkenny/2/ire1500.htm . The whole site on Ireland history is very interesting. I haven't read everything, but the difficulties England met to rule Ireland were important enough to justify Eire apparition (with probably CB shields of both Eire and England on every provinces of Ireland island).

-----------

2/ Bretagne could be declared independant of France, but be made a vassal, with maybe good relationships and maybe a military alliance. This is a typical dynastic union. I add here a comment from this page http://www.friesian.com/francia.htm .

'Anne, heiress and Duchess of Brittany (1488-1514), married King Charles VIII in 1491 and then Louis XII in 1499. The understanding was that Brittany would be enfeoffed to a junior line; but after Anne's daughter Claudia (Claude) died in 1524, her husband, King Francis I, kept the Duchy and incorporated it into the Royal domain in 1532.'

I must say also that even if such a dynastic union means governements union were united in one person (here a couple), in 1492, there was many possibilities for Bretagne to become independant again from France.

a/ Either Bretagne could have been transformed in an apanage (domain given to a junior line). This happened to Burgundy during 100 years war and everybody knows how much Burgundy acted independantly. Bourbon was also an apanage and had sometimes very independant behaviours (not enough btw, i think, to be made independant)

b/ Or the successor of Bretagne could have been a women. Imagine for instance that the royal couple of France only has a daughter when the king dies. In this case, this daughter would have ruled Bretagne, but wouldn't have ruled France, as the Salic law prevails and prevent her from access to the throne.

----------------------

3/ The same restrictions applies to Aragon, which could be separated from Castilla.

In 1492, here again the union was not yet realized. The queen of Castilla, Isabella, and Ferdinando, king of Aragon, ruled together, but both kingdoms has different rules of succession. Aragon couldn't be ruled by a woman, while Castilla could. I'm not sure of that but this seems different from the salic law. In Aragon, women branch doesn't seem to be ignored, but transmit rights to the men of their branchs. But others sources says that Salic law was still applied in Aragon. Whatever, this is not really a problem, as this means that both kingdoms could have been separated after Isabella and Ferdinando's death.

And that was very close to happen, as the throne of Castilla went to their daughter Juana the mad after Isabella's death (1504), while Ferdinando married again but was not able to have a son before his death (1516). If he had, Aragon and Castilla would have been separated again. Note also that Ferdinando had been the first king of Spain, but he only ruled Castilla in the name of his daughter Juana (which was said to be crazy). After Ferdinando's death, the kingdom of Aragon was transmitted via Juana to Carlos I (Karl V of HRE), who was also heir of Juana for Castilla, and also of the Habsburgs. But this is another story.

So an independant Aragon, with a vassalty link to Castilla (actually, which one should be the vassal ?), a military alliance and good realtionships should have a sense, to my opinion. Note that, like in every dynastic unions, local parliaments, fiscal systems and administrations were independants.

4/ Poland and Lithuania could be separated in the same way and for the same reasons. Maybe Tanone or someone else could tell us if successions rules were identicals in both Lithuania and Poland. The only thing I know is that Union of Lublin was established in 1569, because the king Zygmunt-August feared his dynasty (the Jagellons) could die out. And actually it really died out, but the Union prevent separation. So this means that here again, the dynastic union was exposed to separation, if dynastic evolutions induced it.

--------------------

You can see that I add 4 new kingdoms and weaken 4 major powers, and that's maybe the only way not to unbalance too much the game. That has to be tested of course.

Maybe this implementation should be tested separately from the IGC, I don't know, but I don't have the ability and the time necessary to handle a new scenario.

My major fear was that division of Poland would unbalance too much the game in eastern Europe, but Tanone's tests seems to prove that this division is viable. I guess that division of the 3 major western powers will be balanced, the others major countries in the west being weaker - Netherlands and Portugal. And remember also that Austria is in fact in the same situation as the four divided countries : it is weak and not very extended until it can annex Hungary.

For Ireland, Aragon, Bretagne, the TAGs are availables, but some of them are used for other countries in the IGC (if we do this with the IGC). For Lithuania, I think that we could be able to suppress one country (a catholic one).

I prefer first to wait for your opinion, before going on, as I know that these changes are really very importants... and bigger than the previous ones.

Regards

Raf

NB : have a look at the site http://www.friesian.com/philhist.htm . There are so many interesting infos on the whole history of the world. And, Mc Guinn, there are many shields there that could interest you.
 
Last edited:
I'm against the seperation of Ireland from England for purely gameplay balance issues--namely, the AI does a crappy job of handling England as it is now. Scotland usually kicks major English-a$$ and in more than half of the GCs I've played so far, Royalists manage to emerge as a seperate nation. Then there are the usual Spanish, French and 'a-random-3rd-country' possesions in Britain. I really don't think the poor English AI needs any more troubles dude. Just my 2 cents.

tuna
 
Raphael,

Of your four suggestions I think that the case for independence is strongest with Ireland. The other unions were firm, voluntary and natural (Spain and France remain whole to this day). Speaking of such unions, I would also point to Norway, which was formally a separate nation from Denmark albeit in a dynastic union.

However, I am a tad sceptical of further fractioning the map. Ireland however... possibly.

/Doomie
 
I really don't think the poor English AI needs any more troubles dude. Just my 2 cents.

Actually, I think that the English AI would do considerably better if it was not getting confused trying to protect two islands. There is a good historical case for making Ireland independent in the GC... It is worth a shot, if properly playtested.

/Doomie
 
Raf - Let me thank you very much for that wonderful link! It is outstanding! So many of your posts are educating and enlightening and you find the keenest history sites on the net!

Aside from that, I also really like your idea of including these dynastic features in the game but wonder if they can actually be fully implemeted. That is, as you say Raf, there was the possibility that these dynasties would not have remained united at these critical junctures in their history, but yet they did. But in the game, there are no trigger events such as if Poland and Lithuania maintained this union (alliance) for some period, they would become a a union (I guess the closest is the annexation relation). But can this be implemented in the game? That is, is political annexation really viable? I must admit I am not a veteran player and so have yet to encounter this in any games (political annexation; PA). I just worry what it means for gameplay on that level.

Second, I tend to agree with Tuna on his observations for England. It is ravaged by Scotland in half the games. In 1/3 of the games the Royalists cause so many problems that England is a non-starter. When the two both hound Enhland it is reduced to a small minor with insignificant colonies. England is the most vulnerable of the majors and yet is the nation that makes the most progress in development and strength in the actual historical record. I wish something could be done for the Limeys to help their performance in the game be a little more consistent with how it actually was in history.

I am struck had how enamored of Italy France is in the game. Each game I play she is aggressively expanding in Italy and ignores Germany. This doesn't seem right. Isn't the legendary claim of France to all territory West of the Rhine? Seems in the game she wishes to push to the Arno and Piave and just ignore the Rhine.

Though I think Poland is a leviathan in the game, I don't know if I would advocate the splitting into two nations unless the dynastic relations can be modeled. After all, in each case, the dynastic issue resolved themselves and the nation remained united. I really like this idea you have Raf, but just wonder how hard it is to achieve/maintain the dynastic union. It should require some player effort - being solicitous such as maintaining an alliance and good relations, but shouldn't be so hard as to fail more than 1/2 the time. And when the major is an AI, how does that work? How can the computer AI know it should covet this particular relationship and devote resources to cultivating it? It seems that this political annexation feature would work well in the case of a human player controlled major, but would inevitably fail with majors that are AI controlled. The we end up with England controlling all of the East end and Tottenham with the rest parcelled out to Scotland, Royalists, France, and the Irish (and Doomie laying seige to the Isle of Man). :)
 
Last edited:
I am in concurance with Savant (and others). You SERIOUSLY cripple England without Ireland in the game. At the same time, taking Brittany from France (while putting them on good relations) and Aragon from Spain, Lithuania from Poland-Lithuania would, I think, unbalance the game.
 
Originally posted by Savant

Second, I tend to agree with Tuna on his observations for England. It is ravaged by Scotland in half the games. In 1/3 of the games the Royalists cause so many problems that England is a non-starter.

Scotland starts with a land tech level of 2, England of 1. indeed, in the first 20 years, England loses some provinces to Scotland or spent money for unconclusive war.
 
Hello Hartmann. I recently got EU and was interested in playing other smaller nations particullary Ragusa (Dubrovnik) because it is in my country. So I would like to tell you about history:

1)Ragusa didnt have leaders. It was a republic. This is small cut of history book...

On the basis of the aristocratic social order the permanent supreme power was vested in the Great Council, which consisted of members of aristocratic families. It elected members of the Senate and of the Small Council which was the executive body of the Great Council. The Rector was elected for a period of a month only as a nominal symbol of power.

So there are any leaders it could use :(, but I will at least try to find a few famous persons of that time.

2)Ragusa also shouldnt be a vassal of Venice. Also cut from the book.

Liberation from the Venetian influence which Dubrovnik achieved by the Zadar Treaty in 1358, was crucial for its later successful development. The other Dalmatian towns did not succeed and they finally came under the rule of the Venetian state in 1420.

3)Ragusa main export was salt and they had good realtions with Pope most Italian towns and Turkey. It was important trade center for this area of Europe so maybe it should become one ina EU. Ragusans had excellent diploamcy and they never fought wars and had an armadda of 180 trading ships at that time.

4)I also think that Shield of Ragusa that i saw isnt correct one..

Sorry about this long post, but i just want help game become better :)
 
I have tested separation of Polan and Lithuinia (mainly because that was my idea). It did not hert the game at all. Its even helps it to be more realistic. Actually the main thing was that Poland was annexed 2 times but that happen because I have removed her from list of majors. In 3rd game Poland was very strong and having military allaince with Lithuinia expend to Germany and Baltic. Lithuinia was very strong too, but was hurt little bit because I myself played Russia but this is normal situation when players controls Russia current Poland-Lithuinia ususally lost all her east possesion very early. Actually its better for Poand to be separated. Poland is the hardest country to play for player from majors (player just could not begin any wars, if he begins to fight he will find himself very quickly in the middle of continuis revolts and fighting in 4 directions). After separation Poland have sequre east border and Lithuinia west border and they can think about expantion in other directions. If Poland (or Lithuinia) will be player controled he can annex other state without problems. Of cause minors did not very like annexations and it looks like in minor variant unification of both countries will never occur but this is normal and quite historical. Lithuinia actually have her own govermant and all goverment system (system was really removed in 1830 - 40 years later after annexation by Russia).

Irish indpendance should be tested. By maybe its true that english AI have so big troubles because its should defend both islands. I have seen in my games how England lost irland complitely to other powers and then takes full control of her own island (removing Scotland and France) and she begins her recnquista from Wales, Bristol, Midlands and London.

Separation of Bretagen is not very usefull I think. Bretagne will be easily annexed by aggresive France (military of diplomaticaly), this very small country could not really survive for long.

Seapration of Aragon will hurt Spain very much but this I think will be OK. Mainly because Spain is so powerfull in current game (never actually so situations when Spain did not win (if player is passive of cause)).
 
Croatboy

As I did some of the background work on Ragusa, let me try to respond your post. I don't speak for Hartmann, but some of the matters you mention have been looked at and discussed before, but your comments are welcome.

1)Ragusa didnt have leaders. It was a republic. This is small cut of history book...

On the basis of the aristocratic social order the permanent supreme power was vested in the Great Council, which consisted of members of aristocratic families. It elected members of the Senate and of the Small Council which was the executive body of the Great Council. The Rector was elected for a period of a month only as a nominal symbol of power.

So there are any leaders it could use , but I will at least try to find a few famous persons of that time.

We recognized that and I think Hartmann just wished to provide some leader names for interest and maybe to build in some variability. There was a separate office however, that echoed the proclamations of the senate. Given this individual could/did not exercise authority (the society as discussed in previous posts was very egalitarian and it was considered inappropriate for an individual to draw too much to himself, political power also relected this).

2)Ragusa also shouldnt be a vassal of Venice. Also cut from the book.

Liberation from the Venetian influence which Dubrovnik achieved by the Zadar Treaty in 1358, was crucial for its later successful development. The other Dalmatian towns did not succeed and they finally came under the rule of the Venetian state in 1420.

It isn;t a vassal of Venice. It is a vassal of Hungary in the IGC because it was such officially until the demise of Hungary. Then it assumed a vassalship under Austria. It was independent in pursuing it's affairs but it was a vassal. The obligation it had was very nominal, if I recall, like sending two ships to war or setting a day to praise the king of Hungary in the churches.

3)Ragusa main export was salt and they had good realtions with Pope most Italian towns and Turkey. It was important trade center for this area of Europe so maybe it should become one ina EU. Ragusans had excellent diploamcy and they never fought wars and had an armadda of 180 trading ships at that time.

Yes it was an important entrepot for Turkey and for armor and metal finished goods throughout the Balkans. I don't think it came close in stature to the Venetian or Thracian COT though. But I would like to see data on traffic and value of goods traded for all COTs circa 1492.

The Ragusan trade fleet was several times the size of England's at this time. England's fleet did surpass it in size about thge middle of the 16th century.

[4)I also think that Shield of Ragusa that i saw isnt correct one..

I hadn't seen a shield of Ragusa in any of my sources, most if which were had just maps and text. One had aerial photographs, but no shield. Any information on that?