• 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.

unmerged(4783)

Waiting for Godot
Jul 7, 2001
672
0
Visit site
Hi, just a very basic question.

Is IGC considered the standard over the regular GC? I have GC v1.09 and I have been somewhat reluctant to download the IGC since it says that all files will be overwritten, and that "Paradox can´t be responsible"... and so on.

From the Readme file it appears to be more realistic than GC, though.

Thanks in advance for any feedback in this regard.
 
nothing to worry about. You should have no problems replacing GC with IGC. It is definitly an improvement...
 
The IGC does add a certain degree of enjoyment to the game, most particularly in the various what ifs ("fantasy options") it allows you to employ.
 
Do what a lot of us do :

Make a copy of the EU folder, rename it (EIIGC?) and use the IGC in the copy.
That way you still have a "virgin" EU to fall back on.

The IGC rocks!
 
Originally posted by BiB
I did that too at first. Now I only have the IGC one left seeing the original one never gets used anymore :D

I use the virgin copy to test the patches on. That way I know that any bad result isnt caused by the IGC. I use a "busy" save file to try to cause the patch some grief!
 
IGC is a trojan that will send your cc#, your personal data and all porn files of your computer to the IGC creators that laugh themselves a branch while consuming your money (just kidding)

IGC is far bette that GC... Also it is more or less a quasi-standard as is mouse instead of trackball, MP3, hungarian notation or command.com as the command line interpreter.
 
While I've only played a couple games on the GC compared to scores the IGC I really think that the two hold different charms. It seemed that the GC offered a far better endgame, while the IGC is more entertaining to begin with. Once you get to the late 17th century in the IGC almost all nations on the Continent seem to have maxed out their tech and it's slow rolling mass siege boredom from there on, so my games usually end in 1650 or so. I remember the GC as having a much slower tech progression that kept the endgame as an actual part of the game.
 
The tech boost doesn't sound too pretty... What did the creators do to it?
 
Originally posted by GNGSpam
IGC allows minors and makes it possible to have countries such as Poland-Lithuania or Portugal annexable (which is a good thing since both were annexed before 1792 and yet in GC they cant be). This alone makes it vastly superior to GC.
PL wasn't annexed before 1792
 
The IGC is a lot more fun for gamers and escapists like myself. I found the restrictions of the GC a bit tedious.
 
Originally posted by CamTheJagMan
While I've only played a couple games on the GC compared to scores the IGC I really think that the two hold different charms. It seemed that the GC offered a far better endgame, while the IGC is more entertaining to begin with. Once you get to the late 17th century in the IGC almost all nations on the Continent seem to have maxed out their tech and it's slow rolling mass siege boredom from there on, so my games usually end in 1650 or so. I remember the GC as having a much slower tech progression that kept the endgame as an actual part of the game.


What patch version was that? In version 1.09 the tech research is slowest.
 
The good bits about the IGC are ability to play other countries and greater historical accuracy. The downside is greater historical accuracy.

To explain: it's great to have the opening 1492 set-up as accurate as possible, but I object vociferously to hardcoded "historical" events taking place after decades of gameplay in which the timeline is already sundered from IRL history. Too often they just don't make sense in the context of the campaign so far. If they ditched all these events and stuck to making 1492 accurate, it'd be perfect. :)