-
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.
- Status
Miozozny said:
Nothing wrong with it; It’s just that Drake’s is much more MP Friendly than Fal’s
I haven´t seen it all, but at first sight IMO I spotted some disadvantages on fal´s :
. There are many more cultures in the map
. There is no unified primary culture in the important countries
. The cots setup is messed up as there a lot of Cots with low value.
Anyway, that´s just at first sight; I haven´t checked the colonial areas.
. There are many more cultures in the map
. There is no unified primary culture in the important countries
. The cots setup is messed up as there a lot of Cots with low value.
Anyway, that´s just at first sight; I haven´t checked the colonial areas.
Ironfist said:
- Drake has more cultures than my scenario for the major countries if I am not mistaken. (That is, they have more state cultures. If you simply mean the amount of different cultures in the scenario, I have no clue which version has more cultures.)
- I don't understand what you mean with 'unified' primary culture.
- And finally, it's indeed true my scenario has two CoTs with low trading value. It was a problem I couldn't fix, unfortunately. However, saying that there are a lot of CoTs with low value seems to be a big exaggeration.
Drake's 1453 one is IMO more unbalanced, because it starts with the Ottomans having Mehmed II and too many cultures for the Ottomans and Muscovy. Plus that Burgundy and a disunified Spain can screw things up.
Usually the biggest criticism of my 1492 scenario is that it hasn't colonial culture (and I am somewhat surprised that you didn't mention it), but the lack of colonial culture was well intended. Simply because I don't believe in making the game easier. (Which is a reason I am also against Drakes governors in some key provinces).
Another one is that the German area is slightly overpowered to the rest of Europe. This is probably true and it deserves a small fix (like lowering the tax and manpower values of the German provinces), but since I don't intend to play an EU2 MP campaign anymore, I won't fix it myself.
And that ends the propaganda
It's good there are two options for players to choose from.
Last edited:
Ironfist said:Excuse my lack of EU vocabulary
No problem
Well, it's certainly true Drakes scenario makes the game easier in this aspect (and thus makes waging wars easier as well, because the scenario profits taking colonial provinces more). It's a matter of philosophy what you like more. I dislike the colonial culture being ahistorical more than the limited gains it gives in waging wars.
I never wholly understood why one would go to war sooner because of something petty as a colonial culture. Colonies not being of your state culture only cost a few pennies to convert and hardly contribute to your stability costs. If you like to wage wars, a colonial culture won't stop you and if you dislike it, it won't make you dow. After all, building warships and losing them in a war is far more expensive than the cheaper conversion and stability costs of a colonial culture would be. Warmongers will wage wars and peacemongers won't. Colonial culture or no colonial culture.
Real kings don't cry about economy, but wage wars for the glory.
Last edited:
My short experience has thought me that in this game ECONOMICS RULES. So I would just like to remind everyone that we are planning to use an ubber Germany, a mixed Culture Ottoman Empire (I only checked this nation as I´m going to play it), a messed up COT distribution and some other unbalancing factors that will sooner or later affect game play.
Miozozny said:
That's what I wanned to say.
o :rofl::writing down that 1492 is FAL's:
Don't smile - you'll be old too.
Ironfist said:
I don't understand what you meant? That we should use it, that we shouldn't use it or something else?
Ironfist said:
No offense meant to FAL, but Ironfist is correct. BT/MP provinces are very diferent then in Drake's. Sweden is very poor, and will lack in both the entire time. North germany is damned strong. Africa is not pagan, and so isnt Indonesia. Who will want these provinces unless they have a rich CoT or a gold mine? There are a lot of more factors, but generally BT-MP is not very acurately distributed. Whoever tends to play 1453 a lot will find 1419/1492... messed up.
Nabukodonosor said:
IMO we could use a Poland if Germany is really that much stronger.
Miozozny said:
Still the colonial threate is very bad. That is one of the things that i mostly dislike in these startups. Spain is the only one who generally gets very good provinces.
Just load the map, press F12 and type columbus and check the entire world. You will understand it if you check it carefully.
BurningEGO said:
I've played NL in a game with it. Even with a Venice, Genoa, Portugal, Spain, Denmark, Sweden and England there were quite some nice provs left. Not many Cots and gold provs, but that was more due to Daniel playing Portugal.
Especially in India and Indonesia there are quite some colonies owned by the AI. They cost a little BB, but are very nice to have.
BurningEGO said:
You just are being used to wealth being accustomised a lot easier for everyone in the 1453 scenario, I bet. My two Götterdammerung games were quite crowded with colonisers (we got 14 players in the last one at start, including Genoa) and none of them had any difficulties in finding good provinces in the rest of the world.
Also, (but this depends on how you use random leaders) Portugal has a headstart in a 1453 scenario due to her historical explorers. That is not very balanced and can lead to gross results (at least in the last 1453 game I played, a few months ago).
Ironfist,
Obviously anyone playing the Ottomans will love a 1453 start more, since the Ottomans have Mehmed II and more cultures there. However, having played the Ottomans myself in the 1492 start, I triple guarantee you that they have plenty opportunities to become very powerful. (See stats at http://www.europa2.ru/cgi-bin/leagu...season=Valkyrie.net IX&lang=eng&yearsave=1819)
Last edited:
FAL said:
Mehmed II would be very useful but that’s not my main concern as leaders have a life time while economics will be there until the end, the fact of controlling lands with Kurdish, Armenian, Albanian, Georgian Culture will considerably increase the costs of tech and stab right in the beginning; at the same time having orthodox tribes in Africa with Nubian culture would drastically diminish the interest for those regions. In this case it’s worth remarking the colonial culture, because if for example Portugal annexes and converts Nubia then I would have an economic motive to invade that region, as I have the same culture and I would be able to convert those regions to Sunni in no time.
So the idea of using a map resembled to Drakes is because we would have to worry less in economics and stability (as they would come easier) and we will be able to focus more on war.
- Status