Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Which country would You like to see implemented in the next version of the IGC?

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.

Which country would You like to see implemented in the next version of the IGC?

  • Mexico/New Spain (revolter)

    Votes: 12 23,1%

  • Brasil (revolter)

    Votes: 6 11,5%

  • Argentina (revolter)

    Votes: 2 3,8%

  • Burma

    Votes: 9 17,3%

  • Khmer (Cambodja)

    Votes: 4 7,7%

  • Boer Republic (revolter, South Africa)

    Votes: 9 17,3%

  • Bremen

    Votes: 5 9,6%

  • Wales (revolter)

    Votes: 5 9,6%
  • Total voters
    52
I guess to me what's conflicting here is what you just said; gamebalance vs. history. Like you said, nobody really wants to make the portugal AI WORSE off with the Boers (though I think they're by far the coolest addition option. :) ); whereas the spanish AI comparitively could really use it. But I'm not convinced that Mexico (New Spain) is really the best historical option here. You see what I mean? It's that key question again, history vs. game.
 
Had the Boers achieved some nominal level of independence sometime in this era? If so, I would tend to favor them as a revolter also as opposed to Mexico (though I had voted for Mexico)>
 
Does anyone else like the idea of having Mantua? they would be there from the begining!
 
More countries in the New World will make it easier to take over, not harder. It is much harder to build up good size cities in the New World then conquer one already there. That is why I would be against adding them. Regarding SEA, those of us that most wanted this, always called for it to be a 3 way struggle between Thailand, Vietnam, and Burma. Thailand must tread carefully between these two more warlike powers, and as I have said before. The Khmer were particularly weak during this time period, and spent much of it being fought over by Siam and Vietnam. Also, we pretty much have Burma's leader and monarch files ready to go.
 
I think adding Mantua would be realistic and make Italy far more interesting.

The tribals represent these Amerindian nations. And I dont think it would make things more realistc. Usally in N. America the Natives were slaughtered, not assimilated. The tribal societies better represent this.
 
I don't think that adding the Boers in as a potential revolter for the Grand Campaign makes any sense whatsoever. In 1492, it was far from predetermined that the Dutch would establish extensive settlements in South Africa. The game might have a Boer Republic appearing from another nation's colony in a situation where colonies of several different nations have been established in southern Africa and thus it wouldn't make any sense for one of them to declare independence. Furthermore, even with southern Africa being settled initially by the Dutch, there wasn't any Boer Republic in EU's time period. The Boer Republics weren't established until the early 19th century and even then they were formed in inland territories that are 'terra incognita' in EU when Boers from the coast migrated there; they weren't formed from rebellion.
 
Sorry, the Boers make no sense whatsoever. If Sounth Africa is colonized it probably won't be by the Dutch. It doesn't make sense to make the Boers revolt against the Portugese!

As for what I would want of the choices listed so far I would say the Sioux (Dakota or Lakota).

If they aren't already there I would say the Norwegians need to be included. The game can only be enhanced with the addition of more Scandanavians. ;)
 
Norwegians are there.

But the question is- do we have the right provinces for the Souix? Anone know?

We have the perfect province for Mantua as a starting nation. Or Pisa as a revolter.
 
I agree that the Boers are a stretch even if I voted for them - as it is all continents have states except sub-saharan africa. This is just wrong IMHO.

In many games the Dutch of course do not colonize South Africa, and Boers rebelling against the Portuguese seems silly. However a human playing England could easily conquer Mexico and a succesful rebellion there would then be called New Spain? Equally silly. Neither the Greek, Mexican nor Boer states fit into the EU timespan - they should all be 'longshots'.

All in all, I vote for a sub-saharan african nation in West or Southeast Africa.

/Vandelay
 
I agree boers being a 'silly' ;) option. I voted for Bremen to get rid of Hanseatic League. I don't see Hansa being part of this era. Not as a united country anyway. If I can't have my way then Burma would be nice addition to balance the far east powers. The colony revolters(Mexico,Brazil) are not really providing that much more to GC in general. Even USA the 1st succesfull revolter starts in the end of the era described in the game.
 
Last edited:
I think adding Mantua would be realistic and make Italy far more interesting.
Click to expand...

I have no major objections to Mantua at all. But I think the other nations, such as Mexico should take a back seat to Mantua or the Sioux Nation. And besides, Jeremy already has a shield made for the Sioux :D.

If the Sioux were implimented, however, I'd rather have them be stronger than the Iriquois because they were a stronger nation. One of the strongest in the New World.
 
- I cannot make any Indian nations, because no usable tag has the right graphics.
- About nations revolting on the 'wrong' background': This cannot be helped anyway. We have this problem e.g. with the USA, too. They can revolt from whatever country has the provinces. But New Spain on an English background will really not occur very often (in fact less often than US emerging from France etc.). And I don´t think it´is stretching imagination too far, that in all the cases of wrong background we could assume that there was immigration from the appropriate countries beforehand (we shouldn´t assume that all immigration is due to the few settlers a state officially sends in). Same goes for Boer - even if I for one do not prefer them, too.
- There´s absolutely no problem to justify revolters as Greece or Serbia. I see no reason to limit revolters to countries which actually *have* (successfully) revolted in the timespan. There were e.g. unsuccessful revolts in Greece and all over the Balkans after Lepanto. The Viceroys of New Spain also tried to improve their sovereignty and there were longings for independence before the 19th century. To conclude: a possible revolter should be just this: 'possible', i.e. plausible. But the revolters don´t have to be confined to 'actual' revolters IMHO.
Also the revolter should contribute to gameplay, and this is why I myself voted for New Spain - the Americas definitely need some more 'spice' and Spain some more problems. I would also have liked Hurons etc. but as I said above, we lack the appropriate graphics.

Hartmann
 
I'm not arguing that e.g Greece should be impossible, just that Greece (Serbia, USA, Boers etc.) should be considered as longshots. Only the most clutzy of human players or the AI would be unable to suppress a Hellas in rebellion anyway.

I disagree with the Americas needing the most extra spice - there are already states there (as in East Asia, with the Uzbeks also Central Asia, and Indochina etc.)- unlike sub-saharan Africa...

/Vandelay
 
Some of these revolt nations were far more likely to form than others, though. The Boer Republics historically were established (in provinces not shown in EU) by migration, not rebellion, so I don't think that including them makes any sense. On the other hand, Mexico gained its independence in 1821, less than 30 years after the end of EU and due to the prior presence of the Aztecs would still have been a relatively densely populated area (and almost certainly controlled by one country) by the time it is available for revolt.

I think countries like Serbia and Greece are even more valuable to have in the IGC, though, because they can potentially form from the beginning and hence have a much greater impact on the campaign.
 
Pieces of eight

I beg to differ with these suggestions to 'make the game more interesting.' I think the game is interesting ot me because it is based on a close approximation to reality. Arguments in favor of making new nations appear for the sake of interest have no appeal to me. I would find them appealing if there were strong evidence suggesting they existed at the time in such a way that they conducted independent foreign policy. They did more than legislate the size of a pint in the local pub.

That may serve as the bare minimum standard for making new nations at the start. Of course, it would also help if they actually had some centralized administrative control or then we are in the situation where a 'nation' has three provinces and two of them are vassals.

I think it is more fruitful at this point to turn our attention to the starting stats of the nations now existing in the IGC. By this I mean, starting money, fleet size, tech levels and such. Perhaps some of the issues that are outstanding can be addressed by more accurate national disposition of assets at the go. I think the IGC has reached a plateau on 'nation building' and think we ought to concentrate more on 'nation mending'.
 
This will be the last country I ever implement, I *promise*. In fact I have already done it ....

From now on, we can work on the details. There is still much to do. E.g. we still lack monarchfiles for some minors and the ones for the majors aren´t wholly correct as well. I propose we first finish them all and then make an extensive crosschecking on stats ... I will soon propose some other issues in the main thread. Especially we should divide work appointing some 'work groups' etc., like Savant proposed some time ago. :)

Hartmann
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back