When editing the GC to play as a minor, does it matter as far as gameplay goes which major you turn into a minor? For example, if I play as Scotland, would I want to turn England into a minor? Etc. Thanks.
-
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.
Well, the only effects of demoting a major is that they are no longer playable and that they become annexable. This means that you can annex even their capital-province which is impossible if they are majors. Some players like to play with only one major power - namely the one they play, and some like to just demote one in order to keep the number of inconquerable powers.
Playing Scotland, you probably want to be able to annex the entire island - therefore make England a minor. Big majors like France, Turkey, Spain or Poland will probably not be completely conquered even if it is theoretically possible, but countries such as Portugal (especially), Austria, Sweden and England run a big risk of disappearing completely.
Playing Scotland, you probably want to be able to annex the entire island - therefore make England a minor. Big majors like France, Turkey, Spain or Poland will probably not be completely conquered even if it is theoretically possible, but countries such as Portugal (especially), Austria, Sweden and England run a big risk of disappearing completely.
Further to this point, I am planning to run some hands-off campaigns by setting the speed very fast and putting all of the messages to the log, then starting the game in the morning and after I get home from work seeing what developed during the day. Apart from just being interesting, this might point out some imbalances if any exist. I believe laurent Favre and others are already doing this.
So the main problem I have is: what major to make the 'player' (who won't do anything, obviously), and which major to demote to a minor if necessary. I think that 'playing' any of the majors inactively (as a vantage point) will skew the game too much. What I am thinking so far is: to make Japan the vantage point (since for them to do nothing is fairly historical and probably won't upset things too much) and then perhaps the Ottomans or Russia as a minor? I assume that these two are fairly unlikely to be fully annexed in any case. Does anyone have any other views on this?
So the main problem I have is: what major to make the 'player' (who won't do anything, obviously), and which major to demote to a minor if necessary. I think that 'playing' any of the majors inactively (as a vantage point) will skew the game too much. What I am thinking so far is: to make Japan the vantage point (since for them to do nothing is fairly historical and probably won't upset things too much) and then perhaps the Ottomans or Russia as a minor? I assume that these two are fairly unlikely to be fully annexed in any case. Does anyone have any other views on this?
Last edited:
Originally posted by Jas
Further to this point, I am planning to run some hands-off campaigns by setting the speed very fast and putting all of the messages to the log, then starting the game in the morning and after I get home from work seeing what developed during the day. Apart from just being interesting, this might point out some imbalances if any exist. I believe laurent Favre and others are already doing this.
So the main problem I have is: what major to make the 'player' (who won't do anything, obviously), and which major to demote to a minor if necessary. I think that 'playing' any of the majors inactively (as a vantage point) will skew the game too much. What I am thinking so far is: to make Japan the vantage point (since for them to do nothing is fairly historical and probably won't upset things too much) and then perhaps the Ottomans or Russia as a minor? I assume that these two are fairly unlikely to be fully annexed in any case. Does anyone have any other views on this?
Hey, I do (and did) these 'hands off' games with Japan all the time! And I always delete ALL other major powers. In all my hands off games only Austria was ever annexed totally (and maybe Poland once but with a very old patch).
Hartmann
I usually check on hands-off games from time to time (Helvetia is the country to play, BTW). Crashes occur often and I do not trust auto-save. Oh yeah, it may also be good to keep major powers major for the purposes of watching the historical graphs to pick up on emerging game dynamics. In fact, add more major powers (there are 12, I think). You should see all their graphs. Minors all have that peach-color, thought, so only add one or two to become majors if you want to study what happens to them historically.
It does not help nearly as much to see what happens at the end of 300 years, compared to WHY it happened and HOW it happened. If Poland falls, is it by war, instability, ruinous alliances, low tech, what? You do not get a good answer by coming in at the end and looking at the map.
It does not help nearly as much to see what happens at the end of 300 years, compared to WHY it happened and HOW it happened. If Poland falls, is it by war, instability, ruinous alliances, low tech, what? You do not get a good answer by coming in at the end and looking at the map.
driedcow
Can you really designate up to 12 majors so that you could pick from among them? I didn't know that but it would be useful for me as I love playing minors but like to see how the majors are doing (viz-a-viz).
How do I add the 4 extra tags to the 1492 file?
Can you really designate up to 12 majors so that you could pick from among them? I didn't know that but it would be useful for me as I love playing minors but like to see how the majors are doing (viz-a-viz).
How do I add the 4 extra tags to the 1492 file?
You can put in as many countries as you want. Only the first 9 are selectable to play. The 9th one's shield is partially visible on the rightmost part of the selection screen in the game. The successive shields are invisible.
How you do it is just take a given country chunk in the .eug file, copy, paste below, and rename the country tag.
So in the beginning it is:
header {
SPA {
stuff
}
...
POR {
stuff
}
}
include 'scenarios/1492.inc'
Then you do this:
header {
SPA {
stuff
}
...
POR {
stuff
}
POR {
stuff
}
}
include 'scenarios/1492.inc'
Then this:
header {
SPA {
stuff
}
...
POR {
stuff
}
PRU {
stuff
}
}
include 'scenarios/1492.inc'
And so on...
header {
SPA {
stuff
}
...
POR {
stuff
}
PRU {
stuff
}
MOG {
stuff
}
KUR {
stuff
}
TRI {
stuff
}
GEO {
stuff
}
}
include 'scenarios/1492.inc'
And that is how you do it. Mess up and it will crash, though. Check that the braces match and that (my common mistake) you do not misspell the tags: Nubia is not NUB, but SUD. Bavaria is not BAV, but BAY. Hedschas is not HED, but ARA. So on and so forth.
How you do it is just take a given country chunk in the .eug file, copy, paste below, and rename the country tag.
So in the beginning it is:
header {
SPA {
stuff
}
...
POR {
stuff
}
}
include 'scenarios/1492.inc'
Then you do this:
header {
SPA {
stuff
}
...
POR {
stuff
}
POR {
stuff
}
}
include 'scenarios/1492.inc'
Then this:
header {
SPA {
stuff
}
...
POR {
stuff
}
PRU {
stuff
}
}
include 'scenarios/1492.inc'
And so on...
header {
SPA {
stuff
}
...
POR {
stuff
}
PRU {
stuff
}
MOG {
stuff
}
KUR {
stuff
}
TRI {
stuff
}
GEO {
stuff
}
}
include 'scenarios/1492.inc'
And that is how you do it. Mess up and it will crash, though. Check that the braces match and that (my common mistake) you do not misspell the tags: Nubia is not NUB, but SUD. Bavaria is not BAV, but BAY. Hedschas is not HED, but ARA. So on and so forth.
Is there any sort of a story behind it?
Or did you just randomly select it from a dictionary?
Or did you just randomly select it from a dictionary?
Sorry, Hartmann, I did not mean this to sound like I'd just thought of this brilliant idea, of course I know that's how you guys run much of your testing, but I only just started thinking about doing it myself, and what was the best way to manage it. As in quantum mechanics: one cannot observe a system without interfering with that system by the very act of observing it . . .
Actually when making all the majors into minors, I'm surprised that Portugal doesn't get swallowed up fairly often.
I always thought dried cow = leather?
Jas! Please email me Your monarch files one more time to my other emailaddress. The hotmail address seems to drop all attachments. I want to include them in the next version of the IGC, which will be released soon.
Hartmann
P.S.: Please read Your 'private messages' in case You don´t have my other emailaddress yet....
Please email me Your monarch files one more time to my other emailaddress. The hotmail address seems to drop all attachments. I want to include them in the next version of the IGC, which will be released soon. Hartmann
P.S.: Please read Your 'private messages' in case You don´t have my other emailaddress yet....
Last edited:
No meaning? Is this a Rorshack test?
I mean, excuse me but I get this image you see..
cow = milk
dried = no milk
And so.. well, it isn't a pretty picture!
I mean, excuse me but I get this image you see..
cow = milk
dried = no milk
And so.. well, it isn't a pretty picture!
It's not dried *space* cow.
It's driedcow. Make of that what you will.
What is a Rorschacahcchchachachacha (I spel gud) test?
It's driedcow. Make of that what you will.
What is a Rorschacahcchchachachacha (I spel gud) test?
driedcow
A Rorschack test is a projective test. It is a psychological test intended to reveal something about the personality and motives of the respondent. It is the famous 'inkblot' test where what is described by the respondent tells something about his state of mind. The inkblots are just that.. devoid of meaning. Meaning is imposed by the person's description of what they perceive the inkblots to be.
They are just 'inkblots'.
A Rorschack test is a projective test. It is a psychological test intended to reveal something about the personality and motives of the respondent. It is the famous 'inkblot' test where what is described by the respondent tells something about his state of mind. The inkblots are just that.. devoid of meaning. Meaning is imposed by the person's description of what they perceive the inkblots to be.
They are just 'inkblots'.
If I had to choose just one to demote to a minor, I'd demote Poland - while they're interesting to play, they are the only major power in the 1492 game that got fully annexed later on, though they revolted and reappeared later.
howdi there
in my games i prefer to demote poland, as i like playing prussia or russia in most of my games
in my games i prefer to demote poland, as i like playing prussia or russia in most of my games
Poland only got to be completely annexed in 1795 so it lived to see the end of the game. The Teutonic Order got carved up in 1561 already with most of its territory going to Poland.
Question, though: All those numbers you have to remove in order to make a major annexable...doesn't one of them mean something? You don't make the major lose Tech Stats or other stats do you?
Question, though: All those numbers you have to remove in order to make a major annexable...doesn't one of them mean something? You don't make the major lose Tech Stats or other stats do you?