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
Tanone:

For the Poland-Lithuania split, I think the Poland Lithuania then should have a military alliance until the end of the game (1792) and have royal marriage and very high (200) relations.

Same if you will seperate Aragon from Spain (though I fear that'd mean France would be able to trample all over Europe without that much recourse).
 
Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Tanone:

For the Poland-Lithuania split, I think the Poland Lithuania then should have a military alliance until the end of the game (1792) and have royal marriage and very high (200) relations.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. Actually this is what I have done in 3rd test game. Milliray Allaince till end of game, vassalisation of Lithuinia by Poland till end of game and very good relation. Actually they used same 'Polish' AI.
 
Wow, major discussions were going on since I dropped in the last time yesterday! :)

@Raphael: First let me thank You for the link. I already had links to some other subpages of friesian.com, but now I took the opportunity to bookmark the main site. I am still wondering how it comes that such really cool history pages are hidden beneath a site dedicated to the relatively little known neokantian Fries...
About Your suggestions: I think You are right, that IF we split countries according to dynastic unions, then we have to do that with ALL of them to retain gamebalance. Still - like savant and others - I´m a bit sceptical whether the engine will be able to handle this (means: whether the development of the game will merge most of these splittings into one whole in the long run again).

But I think NOTHING prevents us to test this setting 'separately' from the IGC. And: We could easily provide additionally to the IGC an 'IGC - the dynastic unions' issue.

So everyone could choose the version which suits his taste best.:)

On England I think, we could take away Ireland but we would have to compensate England by giving it landtech 2 and some other improvements.

@CroatBoy: Thank You for Your contributions. :) As savant pointed out we have most of this o.k. already. Ragusa is not a vassal of Venice (I only did this in a very early version to compensate Venice for the loss), but of Hungary in IGC 1.5e. And it has no identifiable leaders. I only implemented the 'run-of-the-mill rector'. :)


@all-of-You-folks: Let me tell You once, how glad I am to have You all around here. Without Your contributions and all our indepth discussions the IGC would amount to nothing. But our collective amount of knowledge is staggering, I dare to brag. :D It is a pleasure to work with You. :)

Hartmann
 
Tuna and all those against separation of Ireland from england :

If there is a mistake in set-up about England (strenghts, knowledges, etc.), why should we add a second mistake, with Ireland status ? The best thing to do is to implement historical accuracy about both Ireland (thus separate it from England - except if you have sources saying that Ireland was controlled by England in 1492) and England strenght - particularly against Scotland and France. Its weakness against Royalists is not unhistorical, as Royalists were strong, weren't they ?

So the question should be : why is England so weak in 1492, and how to make changes and come back to a more historical strenght ? The knowledge increment proposed by Hartmann could be a first solution. But doesn't anybody know England enough to explain what are the mistakes in the GC scenario ?

And btw, Doomdark's remark about Ireland are interesting and means that this separation deserves test, I think.

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

About Norway's separation from Denmark, that's something to analyze, Doomie. Were the succession rules differents ? And remark also that this time, it doesn't weaken a major power, but instead probably reinforce one, Sweden, which could be a problem. Or maybe it has to be tested ? Maybe Norway defend itself better separated from Denmark ? Who knows without testing ?

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

Savant,

I think that the close links between Poland/Lithuania, Aragon/Castilla, Bretagne/France will sometimes induce annexation, sometimes total separation and sometimes close links all along the game. On this point, EU IA provides good historicity.

Also, I think that the most important country of the separated union should be the only one to have the major status, in order to resolve your justified scruples. I.e. Castilla and France in the west ; for Poland and Lithuania, I think Poland deserves it, but the Jagellon king was initially from Lithuania. So anyone else opinion ?

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

Tanone

Keep on testing about Poland and Lithuania. Your tests already make me change my mind on separated unions.

About Bretagne and France, and the Briton weakness in front of France, this can always be balanced, I think, as long as the modifications base themselves on as much historicity as possible.

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

Isiddiqui

About separation of Aragon and Castilla, there are a few points to note.

1/ Castilla now has no more common border with France, which can help its peaceful development.

2/ Who should receive spanish Low countries and Franche-Comte ? This inheritance was in fact common, as it was Karl V's, heir of both Castilla and Aragon, which received it. If Aragon did, this separation will divide Spain in a European country (Aragon) and a colonial country (Castilla, with likeness with Portugal, but stronger and bigger - Castilla had nearly all spanish explorers and conquistadors and the Tordesillas rights actually). If Castilla did, then it results in a still very strong Castilla and a second-rank mediterranean power Aragon. This has to be debated, of course.

3/ I still think that Castilla and Aragon will be very strong and able to resist to France, as long as the separation doesn't weaken them (but Tanone's test about separated behaviours of Poland and Lithuania makes me suppose it) and as long as France annexation of Bretagne is not too easy.

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

Hartmann and Savant

About Friesian site,

Yes, this site is also one of my History bibles. I have a few remarks to make, based on it, I will do it later. And Hartmann, that's a pity, I studied philosophy and still don't know well neo-kantism ; but to be honest, I like very much Kant, but not much the neo-kantists I know. That's probably the reason.


Best regards to all of you

Raf
 
Navarra and Bearn

Ok, this is a subject already noticed by someone (but I can't remember who).

Should Navarra owns Bearn province (or have CB shields on it) ?

I have read all the stuff about Navarra on http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#navarre .

This is long and complex, so I'm not going to reproduce it, but synthesize it instead.

Navarra was annexed by Ferdinando V of Aragon in 1512.

Prior to this date, Navarra was an independant kingdom, but the king/queen also ruled other important territories in southwestern France (duchies and counties) under vassalty of the king of France. So these territories (grosso modo Bearn province of the map) were french but had the ability to secede that had any french province not belonging to the royal domain.

After annexation of Navarra (i.e. only the kingdom of Navarra, not the french territories) by Aragon, the kingdom of Navarra still stay alive, as a very small part of Navarra north of Pyreneans mts (called Lower Navarre) still was an independant kingdom, and the queen/king of Navarra was still vassal of the king of France for french domains. One of these kings/queens became later heir of France (Henri IV, but only because of its union with the Bourbon house - another France vassal in Massif central).

So my solutions to simulate this situation are :

1/ Either give Bearn to Navarra and make Navarra a France vassal.

Of course, Navarra king/queen was not a vassal of France for the kingdom of Navarra itself, but this compensate the province loss for France, I think. I don't know what we should do about military alliance and relationships level. I can make research, if necessary. Give Aragon/Spain a CB shield on Navarra province. With these close links to France and the spanish CB shield, Navarra will be in the frontline, I think. This was historically the case. I don't know if France should have a CB shield on Bearn province, but I think yes.

2/ Or keep the GC solution and don't give a navarrian CB shield on Bearn, nor a France CB shield on Navarra of course. The aragonese/spanish CB shield on Navarra can be kept. This solution also makes sense, but doesn't simulate the intricacies of this region.

That's all folks for Navarra.

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

About Teutonic knights and Brethren of the Swords orders, look at http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#teutonic .

It's short, so I can reproduce it :

'The Teutonic Knights, or the Order of the Knights of the Hospital of St. Mary of the Teutons in Jerusalem, was founded at Acre in 1191, after Jersualem had fallen (1187) and the Third Crusade (1189-1192) was trying to recover the Crusaders' position in Palestine. When Acre fell to the Mamlûks in 1291, the Seat of the Grand Master was moved to Venice, and then to Marienburg in Prussia in 1309. Even while the primary business of the Order was still Palestine, it had also taken on the job of subduing pagans in the Baltic. They joined another crusading Order that had already gotten started in Latvia, the Brethren of the Sword, which founded Riga in 1201. The Brethren of the Sword were attached to the Teutonic Knights in 1237. While the former occupied Latvia and Estonia, the Teutonic Knights proper got started on Prussia 1226. By 1283 the conquest was complete, and before long the Prussians were converted or exterminated -- their language disappeared. A new capital was established at Königsberg in 1457.

At its height, the territory of the Knights included Prussia, Latvia, Estonia, and a large slice of Lithuania. This high water mark ended with a defeat by Poland-Lithuania at Tannenberg in 1410. Later, Imperial Germany thought it was avenging that defeat by driving the Russians out of Prussia in 1914, a battle they also called Tannenberg. Much Prussian territory was lost to Poland in 1466, and Prussia itself became a fief of Poland, though Latvia and Estonia were kept separate, with the Brethren of the Sword emerging again, usually called the Livonian Knights.

The Livonian Knights collapsed in a three way contest between Russia, Poland, and Sweden. Between 1558-1582, Russia was repulsed, Sweden got Estonia, and Poland ended up with the rest. The last Livonian Grand Master became the Duke of Courland, in southern Latvia, under Polish suzerainty. Then, between 1621-1629, northern Latvia fell to Sweden.

In a way, the Reformation finished what the Poles could not. The last Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights became a Protestant and secularized the Order. Prussia became a Duchy. He was a Hohenzollern, and when his son and successor died without male issue, Prussia was inherited by Brandenburg. The Duchy of Courland continued until the last Partition of Poland.'

Hope it can clarify Baltic situation.

Best regards

Raf
 
Norway was formally in a dynastic union with Denmark; i.e. they acknowledged the king of Denmark as king of Norway, just as was the case with Sweden until 1521. The Union of Kalmar in its reduced form formally lived on until sometime in the 18th century I believe, when Norway was incorporated into Denmark proper in name as well as in practise.

The main reason that Norway never seceded from Denmark was probably that its own nobility was so small and weak, unlike the powerful and large Swedish nobility. The other important factor was simply that Norway was not a very populous country.

I would say that the union Denmark-Norway was probably pretty similar in its effects as the one between Poland and Lithuania.

However I am firmly against dividing Norway and Denmark, for, as you say, Sweden would benefit far too much from such a split. The game engine does not support dynastic unions, so we should leave them alone.

About Ireland, I do suspect that the English AI would have an easier time without it. I am sure you have all noticed how much trouble the AI seems to have with islands in general. The Irish provinces are poor, so the loss would certainly not cripple England. However, some sort of compensation would probably be in order. A tech boost coupled with a larger starting capital might do the trick.

/Doomie
 
With all these important discussions pending, I decided to release IGC 1.6d now. So we can relish/evaluate the changes already implemented without having to wait for the decisions in all the other matters.
The free Kurland tag is still attached to Kurland as a revolter at the moment. This gives us some breathing space before the final decision is made here also. So the only new nation is Pommerania. You will find about all other changes in the readme.

Regards, Hartmann
 
Another reason for releasing a new version today is that I will be quite occupied with RL issues during the next weeks. (I also will be away for a few days next week.) In the meantime I hope some results will emerge ...

Hartmann
 
If there is a mistake in set-up about England (strenghts, knowledges, etc.), why should we add a second mistake, with Ireland status ?
Click to expand...

You are no doubt correct Raf in taking exception to our logic on that score. We need to take some time and work this issue out. Having your input will help tremendously. The other thing that strikes me is the gameplay issue and on this Doomie adds a different angle in that he argues perhaps England is crippled with the Irish holdings. He is more knowledgeable about the AIs capability than most of us and so this point intrigues me, and I can see how it could tether England to a corpse. Lots of AIs stumble on similar demands. So again, I'm left scratching me head on these issues.

Alternative options (assuming separate Ireland) seem to be:
- strengthen English Land tech
- make English provinces richer
- weaken Scotland
- strengthen English fortresses

Obviously we should gather more info before we act on any of these or other suggestions posted thus far.
 
The 'new' Ragusa shields are ready. Would like to do new flag too, but I don't have time for that now.
Hope you'll have a pleasant time next week, Hartmann.
Seeya
Jeremy



Originally posted by Hartmann
Another reason for releasing a new version today is that I will be quite occupied with RL issues during the next weeks. (I also will be away for a few days next week.) In the meantime I hope some results will emerge ...

Hartmann
Click to expand...
 
Ragusa Coat of Arms

Here is URL for flag of Ragusa which I think you got right

http://www.hrvatska.org/~darko/etf/et111.html

Also here is Their Coat of Arms:

http://www.dubrovnik.hr/

Also if somebody can tell me if it is possible to play Ragusa as a player somehow, to edit some files or something :). I am not a computer hacker, but I would be grateful to anyone who could help me.

Also couldnt resist to post Ragusan slogan whic is cool to me...'Liberty is a treasure whis is not sold for all wealth in the world'. :)
 
Croatboy -

I am currently playing Ragusa and it is challenging! Here is what you need to do:

- open the Improved GC I .eug file (in scenarios folder) in wordpad, do not change the file association or properties
- delete a 3-letter nation tag of a major, say FRA for france
- then in its place type in the 3-letter tag for Ragusa (SPR)

- Also make sure that you have made the appropriate changes to the .csv file which includes adding the Ragusa tag.

If you have done these two things, then you are ready to play Ragusa!
 
Re: New IGC version

Originally posted by Robert
Hartmann, Isn't the next version 1.6f? When will it be posted?
Click to expand...

The last version was 1.5e. The next version will be 1.6d. (The intermediate versions/variants will not be released). I already sent the files to Doomie and to the Scenario depot. At neither place they are up yet, but that´s not im my hands ...

Hartmann
 
Originally posted by McGuinn
The 'new' Ragusa shields are ready.

Click to expand...

Fine. :) But, uhh, I submitted the new IGC 1.6d this afternoon with the old shields... :(
Doesn´t matter: this way we have another highlight for the next version, already. ;)

Hartmann

Btw.: For the new version I replaced the ordinary Greek shields with the cooler ones (Greek/Bzantine). :)
 
Last edited:
Ragusa is Cool

Thanx Savant, I managed to play with Ragusa, but it hasnt got shipyard like in original. I think it should have one since they had really many ships at that time and were known as good shipbuilders.
They made ships for Russians in Novgorod for example..
I tried to look in all files where can you edit so you start with shipyard but I couldnt find it. Does anybody knows where it is.
I also changed its production to Salt not fish because in history books it says they were known for producing Salt for all Dalmatia and near areas.
Also does anyone knows where to edit Centers of Trade?

Oh yes one more thing..where can i download new 1.6 GC..I cant find it anywhere...thanx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back