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
Impressions of IGC 2.0

Just some FB for the dynamic duo (I am playing with low tax rate):

1. Russia is weak and struggles to take Kazan. They rarely make it beyond the Volga and south to Astrakhan.

2. Crimea is a powerhouse. It moves into POland and takes Kazan and just annexed Rhyazan. The general trend is for Crimea to edge north and acquire provinces.

3. The minors in Deutschland are quickly gobbled up by the likes of Austria (when I play the Austrian low countries option), Hessen, Brandenburg, and Saxony.

4. Spain struggles with the Aztecs still and makes no headway with the Inca.

5. Lot's of different results with Poland..sometimes a powerhouse and sometimes carrion. Very exciting!

Any other FB?
 
Originally posted by Tanone

And we should remove artillery from Kazan, Golden Horde, Sibiria. They never actually use guns at all. And it will be good idea to change prices for infantry for all khanates to highest possible (I think should be A coded) and cavalry to lowest possible (should be D coded). Kazan, Astrakhan, Golden Horde, Crimea, Sibiria and Uzbeks was normadic countries. Actually may be its good idea to remove complitely infantry from Golden Horde (they never really use infantry).
Click to expand...

I tried various other buildingcost settings. The problem is, if we make infantry for the Khanates really expensive, they do not build cavalry instead. They build almost nothing then. This is because the building ratio of infantry/cavalry is obviously hardcoded.

Hartmann
 
The "low taxes" setting is quite good, but - personally i always wanted my income to be based on taxes, so mayby add an option "Half prices" or smtg?
 
Hartmann,

Are the rulers of Serbia in the IGC random or are the based upon a historical list?
 
Originally posted by Demetrios
Hartmann,

Are the rulers of Serbia in the IGC random or are the based upon a historical list?
Click to expand...

The first four ones were Serbian despots (but under Turkish rule already). The rest are actually the historical patriarchs of Serbia and Montenegro. Better than nothing! :)

Hartmann
 
Eventually, I read all the thread!!! Quite a challenge..

A lot of very interesting stuff, I you guys indeed diid a great job with these patchs.

I'm playing my first game, so I'll wait until I'll finish to install the IGC. Just some questions concerning the settings.

After reading all the posts I eventually made my mind concerning the dynastic alliance. I will keep the default option where countries united by a regal marriage stay united (Spain+Low countries, France+Britanny). However, I'm unsure concerning regions which historically weren't part of the country they're included in in the GC, namely Eire and northern low countries. So :

My understanding is that england has CB shield on Eire. Am I right?

Same question for Spain when the northern part of the low countries are independant. Does she have a CB shield on these provinces? Also, will the dutch revolt occur nevertheless in this already dutch country? (I suppose it won't, but who knows....)

Finally, how and when, historically, this part of the netherland has been included in the spanish realm (I always thought that the whole low countries belong to Spain)?
 
Originally posted by laurent



Eventually, I read all the thread!!! Quite a challenge..

A lot of very interesting stuff, I you guys indeed diid a great job with these patchs.

I'm playing my first game, so I'll wait until I'll finish to install the IGC. Just some questions concerning the settings.

After reading all the posts I eventually made my mind concerning the dynastic alliance. I will keep the default option where countries united by a regal marriage stay united (Spain+Low countries, France+Britanny). However, I'm unsure concerning regions which historically weren't part of the country they're included in in the GC, namely Eire and northern low countries. So :

My understanding is that england has CB shield on Eire. Am I right?

Same question for Spain when the northern part of the low countries are independant. Does she have a CB shield on these provinces? Also, will the dutch revolt occur nevertheless in this already dutch country? (I suppose it won't, but who knows....)

Finally, how and when, historically, this part of the netherland has been included in the spanish realm (I always thought that the whole low countries belong to Spain)?
Click to expand...

U read it all ?? :eek: :D

It was Karl V who unified the complete Low Countries (who were in no way connected to Spain in 1492 btw). Actually the Netherlands weren't even unified wholly by him (see Liège for example but that province isn't in the game), but basically by Karl V.

As it is, France has a few CB shields on the southern provinces (should be taken away!!) but no one else has unless u put in Gelre, not Holland, in from the start who then get CB shields over the whole Netherlands (not that Gelre should have those). The Dutch revolt will not occur if a nation "Holland" already exists. Holland was Habsburgs though untill the revolt, not independant at the start.
 
After reading all the posts I eventually made my mind concerning the dynastic alliance. I will keep the default option where countries united by a regal marriage stay united (Spain+Low countries, France+Britanny).

Hmm, but Spain+Low Countries weren´t in dynastic union in 1492 , so You should use Austrian Lowlands/Free Netherlands. Netherlands will not revolt then, of course.

My understanding is that england has CB shield on Eire. Am I right?

England had CBs all over Eire.


Finally, how and when, historically, this part of the netherland has been included in the spanish realm (I always thought that the whole low countries belong to Spain)?

I differ with BiB only in that I would even claim "not really before 1556", because Karl V had no conception of "Spain vs Austria". But as EU doesn´t have dynastic union of the house of Habsburgs, we would have to say 1519.

Hartmann
 
What did I say ? ;) I used Karl V as defining person, clearly I ain't talking Spain only ;) Though I see it could be interpreted that way but I wasn't :) No secret though as to what solution I favour ;)
 
While ur around anyway, I don't think France merits CB shields on Flanders-Hainaut-Luxembourg. Esp Flanders tried for near whole their history to stay out of the grip of France so them not revolting when becoming French seems a bit odd.
 
Hartmann, my Germanic brother, plz include the Byzantines! Not the folly Greeks(I know they are the same people, but "Byzantines" sound much better and are more cooler to play") So plz, or else the massed will form a mob and rebel! ;)
 
Originally posted by Hartmann


The first four ones were Serbian despots (but under Turkish rule already). The rest are actually the historical patriarchs of Serbia and Montenegro. Better than nothing! :)

Hartmann
Click to expand...

Ah. I knew that there were Serbian despots in exile in Hungary until 1538; are these the same people? As for the Montenegrans, are the ones you used the prince-bishops? The reason why I am asking is because I've got lists of both and wanted to know if you would like to have me post them.
 
Originally posted by The Danish King
Hartmann, my Germanic brother, plz include the Byzantines! Not the folly Greeks(I know they are the same people, but "Byzantines" sound much better and are more cooler to play") So plz, or else the massed will form a mob and rebel! ;)
Click to expand...

I was thinking pretty much the same thing. I hate to ask Jeremy to make another emblem, but the one for the Byzantines would look somewhat like the Serbs' (a gold cross on red, with four gold "B"s near the corners made by the cross, like the marks in the corners of the Serb flag).
See

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/byzantin.htm

for more details.
 
Hmmm...Actually, I was too strongly influenced by my former beliefs and I already have forgotten that in 1492 Spain wasn't involved (I was thinking about the marriage between Phillip and Juana).

I won't care about the dynastic alliances since it's somewhat reflected by the "inheritance" random event (and actually this was often random, as in this example...I don't remember who posted the whole story, with all the rightful inheritors dying until Carlos became the ruler of the three countries...so a random event is quite valid).

So yes, I'll give the low countries to Austria. But I'm still unsure about the "free" part of the Netherlands. I just searched (a little) and didn't find any references about it. Were this part really independant? How was it included in the spanish possessions? Does someone know?

If England has CB shields in Eire, I'll definitely choose an independant Eire (though I would have preferred with all but one provinces in revolt to simulate an ununited country, as someone suggested...)
 
Originally posted by BiB
While ur around anyway, I don't think France merits CB shields on Flanders-Hainaut-Luxembourg. Esp Flanders tried for near whole their history to stay out of the grip of France so them not revolting when becoming French seems a bit odd.
Click to expand...


I understand it's a problem that no revol occurs when France seize Flanders (though an usual revolt is nothing serious to deal with, so it makes few difference anyway...). But in my opinion , no having french CB shield there would be way more historically innacurate. From the XII° to the XVIII° century, french kings tried to take back these provinces (Flanders being originally a french duchy) and so claiming Flanders has been one of the more consistent part of France's foreign policy for 700 years. So, I certainly wouldn't withdraw them.

IMO, the most dubious french shields are in Alsace (I suppose there's one in this province to simulate Louis XIV policy...but i can't find any reason why France could claim this province) and possibly in Lorraine (I'm less sure about it, but I don't think france had any legitimate claim on Lorraine either). Actually, shields on Navarra, Naples or even Catalogne would make more sense from a "legal" point of view. And considering the population, I think that a german-speaking Alsace which was part of the HRE makes also less sense as part of the "national territory" than flanders.

It seems that the CB shields appear on provinces actually seized during this period (Artois, Roussillon,Alsace) or on provinces France consistently tried (very hard) to annex.
 
Originally posted by BiB


U read it all ?? :eek: :D
Click to expand...


Yes..I believe it took me something like 7 hours...But it was pretty interesting, from the game point of view as much as concerning history (I must admit I already forgot everything i read about the central asia khanats and such stuff,though...)
 
Laurent,

You forgot all the stuff i wrote about the central Asian khanates already??? :eek:
you have wounded me! well, maybe not.

Ah , independent Holland. Don't quote me on this, but what i see in 1492 is this:

The Duchy of Gelderland (which is about 65% of the games 'Holland' province) is independent and remained so, more or less till it unified with Holland. how that unification came about and what the terms were for each individual state i don't know.

The lordship of Friesland and the lordship of Groningen were independent in 1492 but were occupied by Carlos I in the 1520's (?date) this is the games Friesland province. This province i feel is too wealthy in the Province.csv, this was not the best or richest land in Holland.

Burgundy, controlled in 1492 by Margaret and Philip I consisted of:

The Duchy of Burgundy (controlled by France in 1492.

The County of Burgundy (Franche-Comte)

The Duchy of Brabant (not really on the map, big problem)

The Lordship of Overyssel

The county of drenthe (both in Holland)

The County of Holland

The Bishopric of Utrecht

The coastal Zeeland counties

The County of Flanders

The County of Hainaut

The Duchy of Limburg

The county of Namur

The County of Artois

The Duchy of Luxembourg

Upper Gelderland

Marquisate of Antwerp

Now, the Bishopric of Liege is not in the game, but i kinda wish a Liege province existed because it was a free state at this time and was quite large.

In the game the city for Artois should be Arras, the city in Hainaut should be Mons, and the city in Brabant would be Brussels.
Flandres could have Bruges, or Ghent, or even Antwerp although Antwerp is not in the County of Flandres.

hope this ramble helps and anyone with a more exact knowledge of Dutch history please respond and clear up my mistakes!

Michael Johnson
 
To add my two cents on the Duchy of Burgundy...

I checked the map of Burgundy in 1475. Now, this is before the death of Charles the Bold, but I will keep the following events in mind.

1. Picardie should be French. If it is there to represent the towns on Somme river - they were taken by Lous XI in 147?

2. Calais might as well go to Burgundy - it was given to English to provoke a war between French and England early on. Clearly, English did not possess no land but a city itself, and if it was blocked by Burgundians from French, it probably should be ignored completely in the game.

3. Temporary casus beli on Swiss. Give Burgundian a chance to avenge the death of Charles.

4. Temporary casus beli on Lorraine. Question: would Austrias own the lands east of Lorraine if Burgundy remained independent? If yes, it's all right, if no - make Lorraine a two province state again. Frisia should not belong to Burgundy - as it was mentioned before, it was conquered by Spain later on. And a temporary casus beli on Cologne. Charles campaigned there to protect his archbishop there. Or something else. under question.

All for now. And is it possible to make Burgundy purple?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back