"Improved Grand Campaign" Project

[Savant]

Splitting "heirs"

Given the impossibility of emulating dynastic succession in the game engine, I think after all this discussion I am convinced this splitting of majors is not viable, although maybe interesting. I think we should look at the national characteristics, relations with other nations, the CB shields, fortresses, etc, and not divide Spain, France, or Poland.

Some of this will get sorted out if we look at the leader ratings. I just don't think dividing them up when they have almost no chance of union is desirable. Maybe separating Ireland from England is OK, but only if it strengthens England, not weakens it.

 

[unmerged(1609)]

I agree. The game seems to be so fascinating that it encourages many people to research history of Europe at the end of XVth century up to the smallest details. That's fantastic. They discover that the meaning of a term country was really different at that time as there were various forms of vassalages, semi independent provinces, selg overned regions etc. Unfortunately the game engine, although realy brilliant, simplifies history especially in terms of internal policy and diplomatic relations. Within its framework the best way to desribe many of those relations is to treat certain countries (like Poland-Lithuania or Spain) as unified organisms. Perhaps we cen wish for EU2 to have even more complex diplomatic and intenal policy model to allow the authors to depict more of those inter or intra country relations.

 

[Hartmann]

- I will not split Castille/Aragon or Poland/Lithuania for game engine reasons.
- I will most probably scrap Eire again because of dubious historicity and because England has problems coping with them.
- I probably will make Bretagne independent as this is not comparable to Castille/Aragon or Poland/Lithuania:
a) in contrast to the other cases Bretagne is a very little country compared to the rest of France. The splitting will not severly hamper France especially not with the new tech settings.
b) There were intermarriages between Bretagne and France beginning in 1491, but the country wasn´t annexed thil 1532 when it completely vanished. (So why should it later come as a revolter btw.? It should be there at the time of it´s real existence instead!)

The only downside is the current engine, because the AI never annexes anything diplomatically. I will pester Johan about this.

Hartmann

 

[Hartmann]

Johan just fixed a bug responsible for the lack of diplomatical annexations. This means: Bretagne will be IN!

Hartmann

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by Hartmann
Johan just fixed a bug responsible for the lack of diplomatical annexations. This means: Bretagne will be IN!

Hartmann

good news. now let's see if Austria is performing better...

Problem about Poland: at start of the game, Poland hasn't CB against Russia. Adding one would certainly worsen relations between them. In the games i've run, Sweden and Poland periodically made war to Poland, with relations suddenly worsening to -100 level.

The same for Hungary: adding a CB against Turkey could help...

 

[Hartmann]

Any ideas where to place them (so that it´s historically tenable)?

Hartmann

 

[unmerged(1609)]

I'm afraid that if you think of a CB shield as a sign of some historically supported claim to the province then none of Russian provinces qualify to have Poland-Lithuania shield. I believe that small polish territories taken by Ivan III before 1492 constitute parts of Tver and Moscow, but certainly not the whole province not even a majority of any of them.

However as I support the idea of generating Polish CB against Russia (that would lead to more wars between Poland and Russia, which was constant state of mutual relations during XVI and XVII century) I have two suggestions:

1. You can place CB shield on Tver and even on Novgorod - historical reason - Moscow expedition plans of King Kazimierz IV from 1479. The coalition that was being formed which included Sweden, Teutonic Knights and Golden Horde was supposed to attack Russia to stop its territorial expantion and take away from territories that they just acquired - Novgorod and Grand Duchy of Tver. For various reasons those war plans didn't materialise so the claim is rather weak.

2. Perhaps you could program a temporary CB running from the start of the game till say 1520. That would resemble string of declared and undeclared wars between Poland and Russia as a result of Ivan III expansionist policy. For Poland those were primarily devensive wars as its main forces were occupied elswhere.

 

[Tanone]

Originally posted by Jan Zamojski
1. You can place CB shield on Tver and even on Novgorod - historical reason - Moscow expedition plans of King Kazimierz IV from 1479. The coalition that was being formed which included Sweden, Teutonic Knights and Golden Horde was supposed to attack Russia to stop its territorial expantion and take away from territories that they just acquired - Novgorod and Grand Duchy of Tver. For various reasons those war plans didn't materialise so the claim is rather weak.

2. Perhaps you could program a temporary CB running from the start of the game till say 1520. That would resemble string of declared and undeclared wars between Poland and Russia as a result of Ivan III expansionist policy. For Poland those were primarily devensive wars as its main forces were occupied elswhere.

I agree with shield on Novgorod, but its better to make temporary CB but not till 1520. I think this CB should be till 1534.

 

[Tanone]

How baout giving Memel to Prussia?
As I know its should be Prussian not Teutonian town.

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by Hartmann
Any ideas where to place them (so that it´s historically tenable)?

Hartmann

i'm thinking about a temporary CB until 1540. A province could lead to side problems...

others things:

-i was thinking about lowering manpower values for all provinces, as armies are currently a bit larger, but as AI doesn't know how to avoid attrition, it would be a new disadvantage for him.

-I've the feeling French religion war doesn't appear sufficiently. It would be both possible and historical to change one province from reformed to protestant. France would have then to deal with 3 religions which would raise revolt risk.

-to the Turkish CB shields in South Spain Algerian CB shields should be added: with the alliance and (I hope) vassalization features, this should reanimate the Turkish-spanish dialog in Mediterranea. these shields would represent piracy from Algiers...

Wholly another point: currently troubles in Holland begin always around 1540. Isn't it a bit sooner than in reality?

 

[unmerged(1457)]

Just a newbie here but there was mention in another thread about North American natives being easily integrated into colonies when this was historically not the case. Actually should the game really allow ANY natives to be incorporated into colonies? Can low aggression natives be edited out of the game completely or only left in a few specific areas?

 

[unmerged(255)]

Regarding Robo's post...there's a (IMHO) really important thread on the general discussions forum about England's anachronistic colonial dynamism--that is, the English can and usually do colonize large chunks of North America even before the historical date of their first successful colony's establishment! This is not a huge problem in a single player game, the AI makes a miserable effort with England in any case--but during a mp game it does create a lot of problems if one of the players is England. Maybe we should reconsider the starting date for English colonial dynamism? Any suggestions?

Tun

 

[unmerged(1609)]

I noticed that some names of Polish-Lithuania random leaders are actually names of Polish cities or rivers (Bielsko, Narew, Lomza, Elk etc). That seems to be the case for other nations as well.
So here is my proposal to update Polish-Lithuanian random names:

POL;Wolodyowski
POL;Wisniowiecki
POL;Radziwill
POL;Krasinski
POL;Kalinowski
POL;Lubomirski
POL;Potocki
POL;Pociej
POL;Sahajdaczny
POL;Houwaldt
POL;Sapieha
POL;Kalinowski
POL;Zaslawski
POL;Lisowski
POL;Wyhowski
POL;Wielopolski
POL;Pac
POL;Polubinski
POL;Dunin
POL;Wollowicz
POL;Lanckoronski
POL;Leszczynski
POL;Siemienowicz
POL;Balaban
POL;Sulkowski
POL;Kazanowski
POL;Getkant
POL;Korycki
POL;Piaseczynski
POL;Zacwilichowski
POL;Mielecki
POL;Matczynski
POL;Zborowski
POL;Grodzicki
POL;Stadnicki
POL;Gasztold
POL;Fredro
POL;Mniszech
POL;Bidzinski
POL;Sanguszko
POL;Przyjemski
POL;Opacki
POL;Massalski
POL;Niemirycz
POL;Sieniawski
POL;Olelkowicz
POL;Sicinski
POL;Oginski
POL;Tarlo
POL;Firlej
POL; Hlebowicz
POL; Herburt
POL; Wolski
POL; Kamieniecki
POL; Kisiel

 

[Doomdark]

Seeing the many requests, I feel it is appropriate to remind you of what we cannot do in the IGC:

1) We cannot change random leader names or values.

2) We cannot make core provinces (so called 'CB shields') temporary.

3) We cannot change the rate of colonists for various periods, or tamper with the colonial dynamism.

4) We cannot tamper with the appearance of CoTs, only make sure they are there from the start.

5) We cannot change which countries turn protestant or reformed.

6) We cannot make any changes to the game map.

Sorry, but that's the way it is until Paradox decides to remove the hard hacks.

/Doomie

 

[Hartmann]

'1) We cannot change random leader names or values.'

You mean the default leader names, right? The random leader names can be changed in randomleaders.csv Most annoying is the hardcodedness of the default leader stats.

'2) We cannot make core provinces (so called 'CB shields') temporary.'

That´s true, but it´s not because it´s hardcoded. It´s because the concept is lacking. We CAN make temporary CB´s, though (not on provinces).

'3) We cannot change the rate of colonists for various periods, or tamper with the colonial dynamism.'

I never tried. But some people claimed, one could change it through those values:

colonialattempts = 0
colonialnation = yes
major = no
dynamism = 0
colonists = 1.000000

I know, colonists just gives You some colonists ONCE, but what about that 'dynamism' line?

'4) We cannot tamper with the appearance of CoTs, only make sure they are there from the start.'

Yes, that´s a severe drawback.

'5) We cannot change which countries turn protestant or reformed.'

Another annoying feature. Btw the KUR tag doesn´t turn protestant (as well as the SHL tag).

'6) We cannot make any changes to the game map.'

How I would love to implement Raphaels great map!

I think I will pester Johan a bit about de-hardcoding default leaders...

Hartmann

 

[Hartmann]

Jan: I will implement those Polish random leader names in the IGC. Thanks!

Hartmann

 

[unmerged(530)]

Did you also change Greek random names? Im the first patch, the Greek leaders had Germanic-sounding names!

 

[Tanone]

Originally posted by Hartmann
'3) We cannot change the rate of colonists for various periods, or tamper with the colonial dynamism.'

I never tried. But some people claimed, one could change it through those values:

colonialattempts = 0
colonialnation = yes
major = no
dynamism = 0
colonists = 1.000000

I know, colonists just gives You some colonists ONCE, but what about that 'dynamism' line?

Hartmann

We can change colonial dynamism easily. Just add country to file 'colonists.csv'. I do not actually know what this values mean but if you write 10 men for colonist that will give country 1 colonist per year as 'colonial dynamism'. About 'dynamism' line in settings I am wondering myself. It looks like this line did not give dynamism to country but what its doing I do not know yet.
Colonists shows how many colonists country have at begining of game. Meaning of 'colonial attempts' and 'colonial nation' I do not know but maybe its shoyld be used by AI.

And anybody thinks about making Grand campaigne with fantasy settings? I have tried it its really fun (but crushes quite often on high speeds).

And about my suggestion of giving Memel to Prussia? Any comments.

 

[unmerged(530)]

About Ethiopia, we should also change thier leader names.

Maybe we should also puta COT in Axum? It would be a small one, but it is better and more realistic than having them have thier COT be Venice.

Ill also look for some Ethiopian Historcial leaders.

 

[unmerged(530)]

Here are some Ethiopian leaders-

Naod(1494-1508) 3/0/4/0 Monarch (4/3/4)
Lebna Dengel (1508-1540) 2/1/2/0 Monarch(4/3/3)
Gelawdeos (1540-1559) 4/1/4/0 Monarch (5/4/5)
Manass (1559-1563) 1/0/2/0 Monarch 2/2/3
Sara Dengel (1563-1596) 3/0/3/0 Monarch 3/3/5
Yacob (1596-1608) 1/0/1/0 Monarch 2/3/2
Susenyos (1608-1632) 1/0/0/0 Monarch 3/1/2
Fisiliedes (1632-1665) ----- Monarch 4/5/2
John I (1665-1680) ------ Monarch 3/5/3
Eyasu I (1680-1704) 3/1/3/0 Monarch 4/5/4
Tekle Haiminot(1704-1714) 2/0/1/0 Monarch 2/1/3
David II (1714-1719) ----- Monarch 2/4/3
Bekafa (1719-1730) 3/0/3/0 Monarch 3/4/4
Eyasu II (1729-1753) ---- Monarch 4/3/3

Ill try to get more later


Here is a site on Ethiopian rulers, we might want to change some of thier stats too.

http://www.ethiopiaonweb.com/ethiopia/History/middle_ages.htm