Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Khwarizim

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.
unmerged(6159)

unmerged(6159)

Field Marshal
Oct 23, 2001
9.458
1
Visit site
OK I have a big gripe with this event:

Code: 
event = {
	id = 325003
	random = no
	country = UZB
	trigger = {	
		OR = {
			owned = { province = 1533 data = -1 } #Khiva
			AND = { 
				owned = { province = 522 data = -1 } #Khwarizm
				owned = { province = 523 data = -1 } #Kara Kum
			}	
		}
	}
	name = "Khayr's Summer Residence"
	desc = "Upon the capture of Khwarizim, Khayr made Sygnak his summer residence and the city henceforth, became the major trading area for the people of the Great Steppes. The region also became profitable as through his consolidation, Khayr managed to unite the turkic people of Khwarizim."
	style = 1
	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1425 }
	offset = 30
	deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1820 }
	action_a ={
		name = "Look how lovely Sygnak is!"					
		command = { type = capital which = 1534 } #Kyzylkum
		command = { type = cot which = 1534 } #Kyzylkum
		command = { type = stability value = 3 }
		command = { type = ai which = "UZB-Summer.ai" }
		command = { type = add_countryculture which = canary }
		command = { type = relation which = DAK value = 100 }
		}
}

This plumps an extra cot two provinces away from Samarkand. I freely admit that I have no idea about the economic evolution of central Asia but I can see no reason why there should be two cots so close together servicing the region. Either this really changed the trade dynamics of the entire region, in which case it definitely should have the line
command = { type = removecot which = 1592 } #Samarkand
added to it, or else it wasn't quite that important and the cot should not be added.

I suspect this is simply a leftover from the way the merge was done, and from the fact that we couldn't remove cots before 1.08. In my ignorance I prefer closing the Samarkand cot, but I'm happy with either change.
 
There is no need for another CoT in Central Asia. The whole period is one of Central Asia being less and less important for international trade.
 
Something needs to be done.
Either remove Samarkand in the process but since this is only two provinces away I'd prefer to not add or remove any CoT, just keep Samarkand. Add 1 in tax instead. Removing and reinsettling CoT in almost the same place erase all merchants that the AI and players has spent money on, and should be done with good reason. (The player can normally take advantage of it by filling it up as soon as he gets new merchants.)
 
As I said in another thread, I think Samarkand should be axed in favor of Kabul, since the Indian branch of the Silk road was far more significant by this stage than the Chinese branch.

North-Central Asia can survive without a dedicated CoT for the 6 years before this event fires.

And the Russian event that forms a CoT in Sibir lands should kill this CoT.
 
doktarr said:
As I said in another thread, I think Samarkand should be axed in favor of Kabul, since the Indian branch of the Silk road was far more significant by this stage than the Chinese branch.

North-Central Asia can survive without a dedicated CoT for the 6 years before this event fires.

And the Russian event that forms a CoT in Sibir lands should kill this CoT.
Click to expand...
It is now a small CoT with little value so this is a good suggestion. If Siberia is properly colonize, siberian CoT could reach great value. And most countries of that region should already know Tobolsk, so they will trade there.
 
doktarr said:
As I said in another thread, I think Samarkand should be axed in favor of Kabul, since the Indian branch of the Silk road was far more significant by this stage than the Chinese branch.

North-Central Asia can survive without a dedicated CoT for the 6 years before this event fires.

And the Russian event that forms a CoT in Sibir lands should kill this CoT.
Click to expand...
I think Garbon intended that the COT made the Uzbeks that much stronger so that they could do what they did historically. As such I' propose (temporarily) that this event simply remove Samarkand.
 
Isaac Brock said:
OK I have a big gripe with this event:

Code: 
event = {
	id = 325003
	random = no
	country = UZB
	trigger = {	
		OR = {
			owned = { province = 1533 data = -1 } #Khiva
			AND = { 
				owned = { province = 522 data = -1 } #Khwarizm
				owned = { province = 523 data = -1 } #Kara Kum
			}	
		}
	}
	name = "Khayr's Summer Residence"
	desc = "Upon the capture of Khwarizim, Khayr made Sygnak his summer residence and the city henceforth, became the major trading area for the people of the Great Steppes. The region also became profitable as through his consolidation, Khayr managed to unite the turkic people of Khwarizim."
	style = 1
	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1425 }
	offset = 30
	deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1820 }
	action_a ={
		name = "Look how lovely Sygnak is!"					
		command = { type = capital which = 1534 } #Kyzylkum
		command = { type = cot which = 1534 } #Kyzylkum
		command = { type = stability value = 3 }
		command = { type = ai which = "UZB-Summer.ai" }
		command = { type = add_countryculture which = canary }
		command = { type = relation which = DAK value = 100 }
		}
}

This plumps an extra cot two provinces away from Samarkand. I freely admit that I have no idea about the economic evolution of central Asia but I can see no reason why there should be two cots so close together servicing the region. Either this really changed the trade dynamics of the entire region, in which case it definitely should have the line
command = { type = removecot which = 1592 } #Samarkand
added to it, or else it wasn't quite that important and the cot should not be added.

I suspect this is simply a leftover from the way the merge was done, and from the fact that we couldn't remove cots before 1.08. In my ignorance I prefer closing the Samarkand cot, but I'm happy with either change.
Click to expand...

Isaac's idea is really good here. I've playtested it and it helps the Mascate/Al Kharim COT stay alive and get a little more trade when the Samarkand COT closes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back