Suggestions

[Darken]

Edited to clarify



As I said the dates are a big part of what I have modded including

1) change the date for the shipyard
2) add the new ships including my revised ship dates
3) replace the ship shock values.

If dates are all that you have changed then I will send my naval.txt file as is.

Please

try it as I send it

I think you will like it

and you really don't need the hasle of all that editing


As far as the graphics - all that is needed is to put in the instructions that if they want to use Merlins ship graphics they will need to download his mod and over write the normal vanilla files. My changes work fine as is with the standard vanilla files (Merlins mod is not needed but would be a nice change if the user wants but really no change from your mods point of view)

One note on the localization - please take the heavy_frigate from my new localization and replace the standard one in text.csv.

I will upload the files late tonight - same place as usual - will call it NavalMOD. All you will need to do is copy the new files into your mod. The work will all be done.

cool, thank you .

I will keep your dates like they are but I may keep my shipyard dates as they are. also, If you have no ships being enabled after level 55 or 60, I will probably keep my average years there.

I dont realy want to include merlins graphics (they are probably cool but i dont like having people replace original files although i have done this with OldMap).

[17blue17]

cool thanks. I will get to work on this as soon as I can, probably tomarow.

Did you mention un needed extra files and smaller downloads ?

under gfx/anims you can delete the files relating to:

early_frigate
frigate
galleon
heavy_frigate
threedecker
twodecker
wargalleon

As these are already in game and only included to try to get Merlins graphics to work. Total of 7 times 7 or 49 files to save some space.

Again only the gfx/anims - do not remove anything from the units directory

[Darken]

Did you mention un needed extra files and smaller downloads ?

under gfx/anims you can delete the files relating to:

early_frigate
frigate
galleon
heavy_frigate
threedecker
twodecker
wargalleon

As these are already in game and only included to try to get Merlins graphics to work. Total of 7 times 7 or 49 files to save some space.

Again only the gfx/anims - do not remove anything from the units directory

cool, thank you. I was pretty worried after adding the 100+ MB of data from this folder . I will remove those anims now (since i added them lol).

[17blue17]

let me know if you have other ideas for important trade goods.

I think MEIOU added a whole bunch of trade goods - you could look at his mod for some ideas. I don't remember exactly but there is a limit on how many you can have - 32? Adding the graphics is the hard part. The easist route might be to ask him for permission to use his for your mod - except replace one with coco.

I think MM is adding more trade goods as well.

For my own personal mod I did:

Added the following:

silver (europe had more silver than gold - also Mexico had a lot of silver)
mining (tin, iron etc)
horses (with weapons factory bonus)
livestock (cattle - lot of africa, south america, western north america)
palmoil (olive and palm) for africa and europe
rice - SE North America
metalwares ( iron works - North America new england area)
diamonds - south africa and india

replaced spice with:
clove (spice islands)
cinnamon (ceylon)
opium (northern india)
pepper (West coast of india)

replaced cloth with:
linen (NED area)
silk (lot of areas in europe (Spain, England, NED, France, Italy, Turkey)
woolens (England, Germany, France, India)

So there should be a lot of good ideas to pick from. Hard part is doing the graphics and picking which ones.

[Darken]

I think MEIOU added a whole bunch of trade goods - you could look at his mod for some ideas. I don't remember exactly but there is a limit on how many you can have - 32? Adding the graphics is the hard part. The easist route might be to ask him for permission to use his for your mod - except replace one with coco.

I think MM is adding more trade goods as well.

For my own personal mod I did:

Added the following:

silver (europe had more silver than gold - also Mexico had a lot of silver)
mining (tin, iron etc)
horses (with weapons factory bonus)
livestock (cattle - lot of africa, south america, western north america)
palmoil (olive and palm) for africa and europe
rice - SE North America
metalwares ( iron works - North America new england area)
diamonds - south africa and india

replaced spice with:
clove (spice islands)
cinnamon (ceylon)
opium (northern india)
pepper (West coast of india)

replaced cloth with:
linen (NED area)
silk (lot of areas in europe (Spain, England, NED, France, Italy, Turkey)
woolens (England, Germany, France, India)

So there should be a lot of good ideas to pick from. Hard part is doing the graphics and picking which ones.

well, ive learned how to do the graphics but I agree that the hard part is choosing which ones to use. For now I think I will just add diamonds if it was important during the time period. Livestock is something I may add but im not sure the others are important (other than horses but this is not moddled well in EU3).

[17blue17]

For now I think I will just add diamonds if it was important during the time period.

Depends upon you definition of during the time period. From what I understand (others can correct me if I am wrong) the big rush for diamonds was in south africa in the Kimberley area in 1870. I think diamonds were found in other parts of africa after this.

So this would seem to say from a strickly historical EU2 deterministic point of view that would be out of period.

However from a historically possible EU3 point of view - POR discovered south africa around 1498 to 1500 or so and if they had not been in such a rush to get to India then they might have settled south africa and found the diamonds and lots and lots of gold.

From a fun game point of view - if it could have happened - and if it is fun (diamonds sound like fun) - then add it.

Personally I like diamonds.

As far as importantance:

As far as my idea to split spices into three - well spices were the most important trade good resulting in europe exploring the globe. Now you could have just the generic spice trade good - but it adds a lot more flavor to the game to split them up by region as was historical as I mentioned in my last post. Also makes obtaining a monopoly in a given area more feasable as well and as historically happened.

I think silver was extremely important for Mexico and the Inca area as there were lots and lots and lots of provinces with silver. After all this was the majority of what SPA got from the americas.

You could use the existing gold trade good to represent silver but I did some research a year or so ago about historical prices. Best I could figure - silver would have a price in EU3 of 200 and gold a price of 3000 (three thousand!) in the EU3 time period. Gold mines should be fairly rare - a few in North west africa and a lot in eastern south africa area while silver should be huge in mexico, SE Inca area, and SAX and BOH. If silver was added the trade good could have plantation = yes as I beleive slaves were used in the mines. Not sure if this was only indian slaves or also included african slaves.

BUT we have to remember this is just a game - so no right or wrong answer.

[Darken]

Depends upon you definition of during the time period. From what I understand (others can correct me if I am wrong) the big rush for diamonds was in south africa in the Kimberley area in 1870. I think diamonds were found in other parts of africa after this.

So this would seem to say from a strickly historical EU2 deterministic point of view that would be out of period.

However from a historically possible EU3 point of view - POR discovered south africa around 1498 to 1500 or so and if they had not been in such a rush to get to India then they might have settled south africa and found the diamonds and lots and lots of gold.

From a fun game point of view - if it could have happened - and if it is fun (diamonds sound like fun) - then add it.

Personally I like diamonds.

As far as importantance:

As far as my idea to split spices into three - well spices were the most important trade good resulting in europe exploring the globe. Now you could have just the generic spice trade good - but it adds a lot more flavor to the game to split them up by region as was historical as I mentioned in my last post. Also makes obtaining a monopoly in a given area more feasable as well and as historically happened.

I think silver was extremely important for Mexico and the Inca area as there were lots and lots and lots of provinces with silver. After all this was the majority of what SPA got from the americas.

You could use the existing gold trade good to represent silver but I did some research a year or so ago about historical prices. Best I could figure - silver would have a price in EU3 of 200 and gold a price of 3000 (three thousand!) in the EU3 time period. Gold mines should be fairly rare - a few in North west africa and a lot in eastern south africa area while silver should be huge in mexico, SE Inca area, and SAX and BOH. If silver was added the trade good could have plantation = yes as I beleive slaves were used in the mines. Not sure if this was only indian slaves or also included african slaves.

BUT we have to remember this is just a game - so no right or wrong answer.

You bring up some good points here. So, as you say, even if Diamonds were not mined and sold in the EU3 period, it may have been plausible. did the technology exist to mine diamonds economicly in EU3 period? How likely would it be for a nation for find diamonds and realize its demand if they focused more on africa? if indeed it was plausible and likely, then I will add Diamonds.

While splitting Gold into Gold/Silver would add more accuracy, I am not sure how much this would matter other than MP games or a slight decrease in some COT wealth. I could however change Gold name to 'precious metals' and average the price out between Gold and Silver as I will probably be changing grain to 'Crops'. What do you think about these things?

I also agree that splitting spices would add more competition or flaver or accuracy, but I wonder if its worth all the extra work. I dont know much about spice history but I am assuming that MANY spices were in demand and MANY of them played a important role. It may just be easier to keep spices as they are but perhaps add some events (TN has no spice events). further event or spice input would be good .

I suppose thats the main problem with TN, just one modder (but you have greatly contributed to the Map), so i have to choose the most important things to change at any given time.

[Lord Eugenio]

Hi Darken

Thanks again for the hard work. Just dowloaded the lastest version and looks good.

For future versions how about some work done with Australasia. For example small Maori and Indigenous Australian nations. (a friend was telling me about the Torres Strait Islanders). I understand that the whole area was exploited more in the 19th century but I know for a fact that the western part of Australia which is PTI at the moment was claimed for the United Kingdom in 1829 so that is not that far out of the games time frame.

Thanks for reading

[Darken]

Hi Darken

Thanks again for the hard work. Just dowloaded the lastest version and looks good.

For future versions how about some work done with Australasia. For example small Maori and Indigenous Australian nations. (a friend was telling me about the Torres Strait Islanders). I understand that the whole area was exploited more in the 19th century but I know for a fact that the western part of Australia which is PTI at the moment was claimed for the United Kingdom in 1829 so that is not that far out of the games time frame.

Thanks for reading

hello, youre welcome

17blue17 and I have discussed adding INx europe provinces and additional europe provinces, possible mexico provinces, and now with your advice we may plan to add some more of australia. these map changes wont take place until after INx is released. I will keep you all update as we plan these things. I do agree that 1829 is close enough to have the west australia PTI removed.

[17blue17]

so this corsair nation should operate like the TN Buccaneer do?

anyway, I like the idea of having a piracy nation in the mediteranian but I need to keep it plausible and balanced.

I have been play testing one suggestion for the barbary pirates. The idea is

1) All the new barbary pirate nations are allied together (Algiers is the leader with Bizerta, Constantine, Bougie, Kabylie, and Tlemcen)

2) As soon as CAS or ARA or SPA take control of any of the historic provinces of Granada it triggers the pirates - as this was a major cause for the piracy.

3) There are events to create pirates in the ocean provinces created by the Algiers tag.

4) If the ALG tag no longer exists or if the barbary pirate nations no longer control thier land provinces or if ARA, CAS, and SPA no longer control Granada's provinces then the events stop - so players can bring the piracy to a close. But keep in mind the land provinces of the barbary nations contain large forts.

Here are some of the events.

################################################## ##############
# Barbary Pirates #
################################################## ##############

country_event = {

id = 454000

trigger = {
TAG = ALG
NOT = { has_country_flag = happened_454000 }
OR = {
SPA = { controls = 223} #Granada
SPA = { controls = 222} #Almiera
CAS = { controls = 223}
CAS = { controls = 222}
ARA = { controls = 223}
ARA = { controls = 222}
}
}

mean_time_to_happen = { days = 1 }

title = "Barbary Pirates shall avenge Granda"
desc = "Barbary Pirates!"

option = {
name = "Barbary Pirates!"
ai_chance = { factor = 100 }
set_country_flag = Barbary_Pirates_454000
ALG = {
add_core = 223 #Granada
add_core = 222 #Almiera
add_core = 337 # Oran
}
BIZ = {
add_core = 223
add_core = 222
add_core = 337
}
CNS = {
add_core = 223
add_core = 222
add_core = 337
}
BOG = {
add_core = 223
add_core = 222
add_core = 337
}
CAS = {
add_core = 338 #Algiers
}
ARA = {
add_core = 338 #Algiers
}
}
}


country_event = {

id = 454001

trigger = {
TAG = ALG
OR = {
ALG = { controls = 338}
ALG = { controls = 1352}
ALG = { controls = 340}
ALG = { controls = 339}
BIZ = { controls = 1352}
CNS = { controls = 340}
BOG = { controls = 339}
}
1785 = { NOT = { units_in_province = 1} }
OR = {
SPA = { controls = 223} #Granada
SPA = { controls = 222} #Almiera
CAS = { controls = 223}
CAS = { controls = 222}
ARA = { controls = 223}
ARA = { controls = 222}
}
}

mean_time_to_happen = { days = 30 }

title = "Barbary Pirates shall avenge Granda"
desc = "Barbary Pirates!"

option = {
name = "Barbary Pirates1785"
ai_chance = { factor = 100 }
1785 = { create_pirate = 1 }
}
}

This second event would be repeated for each sea province - so 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1795 1796 1801 1802 but not for sea provinces 1793 and 1794 which are next to the pirate homelands.

[Darken]

I have been play testing one suggestion for the barbary pirates. The idea is

1) All the new barbary pirate nations are allied together (Algiers is the leader with Bizerta, Constantine, Bougie, Kabylie, and Tlemcen)

2) As soon as CAS or ARA or SPA take control of any of the historic provinces of Granada it triggers the pirates - as this was a major cause for the piracy.

3) There are events to create pirates in the ocean provinces created by the Algiers tag.

4) If the ALG tag no longer exists or if the barbary pirate nations no longer control thier land provinces or if ARA, CAS, and SPA no longer control Granada's provinces then the events stop - so players can bring the piracy to a close. But keep in mind the land provinces of the barbary nations contain large forts.

Here are some of the events.

################################################## ##############
# Barbary Pirates #
################################################## ##############

country_event = {

id = 454000

trigger = {
TAG = ALG
NOT = { has_country_flag = happened_454000 }
OR = {
SPA = { controls = 223} #Granada
SPA = { controls = 222} #Almiera
CAS = { controls = 223}
CAS = { controls = 222}
ARA = { controls = 223}
ARA = { controls = 222}
}
}

mean_time_to_happen = { days = 1 }

title = "Barbary Pirates shall avenge Granda"
desc = "Barbary Pirates!"

option = {
name = "Barbary Pirates!"
ai_chance = { factor = 100 }
set_country_flag = Barbary_Pirates_454000
ALG = {
add_core = 223 #Granada
add_core = 222 #Almiera
add_core = 337 # Oran
}
BIZ = {
add_core = 223
add_core = 222
add_core = 337
}
CNS = {
add_core = 223
add_core = 222
add_core = 337
}
BOG = {
add_core = 223
add_core = 222
add_core = 337
}
CAS = {
add_core = 338 #Algiers
}
ARA = {
add_core = 338 #Algiers
}
}
}


country_event = {

id = 454001

trigger = {
TAG = ALG
OR = {
ALG = { controls = 338}
ALG = { controls = 1352}
ALG = { controls = 340}
ALG = { controls = 339}
BIZ = { controls = 1352}
CNS = { controls = 340}
BOG = { controls = 339}
}
1785 = { NOT = { units_in_province = 1} }
OR = {
SPA = { controls = 223} #Granada
SPA = { controls = 222} #Almiera
CAS = { controls = 223}
CAS = { controls = 222}
ARA = { controls = 223}
ARA = { controls = 222}
}
}

mean_time_to_happen = { days = 30 }

title = "Barbary Pirates shall avenge Granda"
desc = "Barbary Pirates!"

option = {
name = "Barbary Pirates1785"
ai_chance = { factor = 100 }
1785 = { create_pirate = 1 }
}
}

This second event would be repeated for each sea province - so 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1795 1796 1801 1802 but not for sea provinces 1793 and 1794 which are next to the pirate homelands.

This is a good idea but I heard a thoery that even if all of north africa was controlled by europe, unless they could secure each port (unlikely), then the piracy problem would continue. So im not sure about allowing it to end. I thought about making a spy mission that only a north african or Piracy nation can use that will add pirates to a coastal province in the Med. Anyway, im still not sure what the best option is.

[17blue17]

This is a good idea but I heard a thoery that even if all of north africa was controlled by europe, unless they could secure each port (unlikely), then the piracy problem would continue. So im not sure about allowing it to end. I thought about making a spy mission that only a north african or Piracy nation can use that will add pirates to a coastal province in the Med. Anyway, im still not sure what the best option is.

What you heard is correct historically.

However (BIG However) from a game play point of view the biggest complaint about MMG is that the player can't make the events stop (or it is too hard to make them stop). So for your mod you may want to either 1) have a game option to leave them off or 2) have a way the player can make them stop.

[17blue17]

Its also important to note that slave trade good prices were increased and given more demand modifiers (maybe 3 to 5 versions ago). many of these provinces have slave trade goods right?

Darken - this got a little long - but please read all of it as it includes some good suggestions for TN:


The western section was called the Ivory Coast and the western 3 provinces have Ivory as a trade good. Perhaps these 3 could start with lower tax rates if Ivory has a decent trade value in TN (currently 10 maybe increase?).

The eastern section was called the slave coast and the eastern 3 provinces have slaves as a trade good. Perhaps these 3 could start with lower tax rate. When slavery ends Oxford suggest the trade good should change to cotton and Palm Oil.

It is the middle section that was called the Gold Coast and the middle 4 provinces have gold as a trade good. A couple notes here / suggestions:

1) The Oxford Historical Atlas says that the colonies with gold as a trade good were different than other colonies in that they had larger forts (about 40 forts in the area) compared to non gold trade good provinces that traded on the beaches at first.

2) Wikipedia indicates that gold as a trade good had been replaced primarily by Slaves for these 4 provinces by 1637. As the slave trade was in full force by 1620 for America I suggest using 1620 as a date for changing the trade good to slaves for these provinces.

3) POR grabbed the area at first for the gold then latter for the Slaves.

4) The Dutch grabbed the area from POR in the 1630's because the slave trade was so rich.

5) The english were in the area in the 1600s but eventally took over all the area by the 1800's to stop the slave trade.

6) DAN and SWE were in the area in the 1650's and actually went to war with each other over the region.

3) The Oxford Atlas says that by 1830 slaves had been replaced by coffee and cocoa as trade goods.

So maybe have these 4 provinces start with high taxes and then have an event to lower the tax rate after 1620 and change the trade good to slaves?
Note that the slave trade in these provinces was very very very profitable - so maybe don't lower the tax rate too low as apparently the slave trade was even more profitable than the earlier gold trade. (unless the value of the slaves tade good will be very high at that point)

Then another event when slavery ends to change the trade goods to coffee or Cocoa by 1830?

[Darken]

Darken - this got a little long - but please read all of it as it includes some good suggestions for TN:


The western section was called the Ivory Coast and the western 3 provinces have Ivory as a trade good. Perhaps these 3 could start with lower tax rates if Ivory has a decent trade value in TN (currently 10 maybe increase?).

The eastern section was called the slave coast and the eastern 3 provinces have slaves as a trade good. Perhaps these 3 could start with lower tax rate. When slavery ends Oxford suggest the trade good should change to cotton and Palm Oil.

It is the middle section that was called the Gold Coast and the middle 4 provinces have gold as a trade good. A couple notes here / suggestions:

1) The Oxford Historical Atlas says that the colonies with gold as a trade good were different than other colonies in that they had larger forts (about 40 forts in the area) compared to non gold trade good provinces that traded on the beaches at first.

2) Wikipedia indicates that gold as a trade good had been replaced primarily by Slaves for these 4 provinces by 1637. As the slave trade was in full force by 1620 for America I suggest using 1620 as a date for changing the trade good to slaves for these provinces.

3) POR grabbed the area at first for the gold then latter for the Slaves.

4) The Dutch grabbed the area from POR in the 1630's because the slave trade was so rich.

5) The english were in the area in the 1600s but eventally took over all the area by the 1800's to stop the slave trade.

6) DAN and SWE were in the area in the 1650's and actually went to war with each other over the region.

3) The Oxford Atlas says that by 1830 slaves had been replaced by coffee and cocoa as trade goods.

So maybe have these 4 provinces start with high taxes and then have an event to lower the tax rate after 1620 and change the trade good to slaves?
Note that the slave trade in these provinces was very very very profitable - so maybe don't lower the tax rate too low as apparently the slave trade was even more profitable than the earlier gold trade. (unless the value of the slaves tade good will be very high at that point)

Then another event when slavery ends to change the trade goods to coffee or Cocoa by 1830?

Thanks for the suggestions
For now at least, I will adjust the province history for these provinces concerning forts and trade goods as you suggest. I do have events in place that allow trade goods to change to slave trade goods but it might only be for the new world, ill look into adjusting them for africa also with special modifiers for these provinces. I dont like to force history, but I do like to give some probability for historical situations. Im not realy sure at this point if I should lower base tax or increase other trade goods, I guess I need more input and thinking about it.

[Darken]

English is not my language. I can read, but I write used (using?) probably bad grammar (that's why I write so rare). But You shouldn't have trouble understand me (I hope).

Number
In MP situation when more then 4 country will be fighting for these provinces IMO never happen. So why 10 provinces are needed? IMO maximum is 7. In SP games this is like exploit. AI don't kills natives so it has problems with colonization province like this.
When I've transported there 5k latin knights to exterminate natives (not so early, it was about 1520, don't remember), there was some Aragonian troops but without colony. France has 1 and made second colony. About 1550 9 provinces was mine (color of my country). 2 cities and 1 almost city. 1 is still uncolonized. France lost their colonies, I seized these when we were in war.

Tax
Provinces with gold have 40$ production so IMO +15 tax is needless. High base tax makes hight supply and manpower, this is unrealistic.

EDIT:

Colonize
Number of Gold Coast provinces makes we need more colonists to settle this small region (IMO unrealistic in comparison with other regions).
Grow rate tropical -8 is too small. Tolerance gives +5 + other bonus, and finally we have -1%. Historically, I think, it was not so easy.

EDIT2:
I know in this game there is no different between city with 1020 and city with 1999 peoples, but tropical regions IMO should to require continual colonization. Send 10 colonists and forget is IMO unrealistic, malaria, lack of harvest, natives (no way to kill them all in tropical) etc. That's why I suppose the -8 in tropical is too mild.

In my game is 1560 and African nations didn't attack me yet.

Thanks again for the suggestions, I apreciate them.
I agree that it should be harder for the player and easier for the AI to colonize these provinces. I might be able to improve the situation with the new tools provided in the IN expansion so I will wait until then to adress these issues and also see if I get more opinions from players about these provinces in TN.

[der Zarewitsch]

Concerning the Netherlands and their chance to survive:

when creating the new nation all the provinces should be provided with the same religion (protestantism), because
a) otherwise they'll be in trouble from the start off.
b) historically that's why they revolted; they were protestants (calvinists) and their liege, the king of Spain, catholic.

[I would even consider to integrate one or two extra events to strengthen the young nation. For instance an economic/army/navy boost as a result of being independent.]

Just an idea...

[Darken]

Concerning the Netherlands and their chance to survive:

when creating the new nation all the provinces should be provided with the same religion (protestantism), because
a) otherwise they'll be in trouble from the start off.
b) historically that's why they revolted; they were protestants (calvinists) and their liege, the king of Spain, catholic.

[I would even consider to integrate one or two extra events to strengthen the young nation. For instance an economic/army/navy boost as a result of being independent.]

Just an idea...

Well, I think I will be able to make the AI form the Netherlands much more often now in TN (1453 has no netherlands cores, its only event). The problem is that ive never seen the netherlands form naturaly in TN by the AI (but I hope to soon, I am working on this). Once I achieve this, I will see what needs to be done in order to give them a fighting chance. I dont like forcing history but i could definately give them a kick in the right direction concerning religion or whatever. anyway, I will keep your ideas in mind while I test my new netherlands minor missions (which are to have dutch nations gain netherlands provinces). This mission is in beta3 but I have not even tested it....

[Darken]

I haven't yet played your mod at all - I just downloaded it a few moments ago - but I've been playing around with modding IN, and in particular the tribal countries (well, mostly Byzantium, but the tribal countries too) a lot, and finding through lots of testing and observation how the new rules work for the big tribal governments in the Middle East and central Asia, so I have some ideas on some points in the manual. (I hope this is constructive rather than impudent, as you seem to have done a ton of well-thought out stuff and I'm just picking on one little bit I've been focusing on for the last week.)


The post-collapse Inca rebels built at least one pretty impressive fort, so I don't think you're crazy at all.

In vanilla (though quite likely the many changes you've made have changed this) I found that the arguments for annex=yes were quite different for the "shamanic" vs "animism" pagans. (Not that this has anything to do with the real life meanings of those terms, but it happened that the nations Paradox describes as "shamanic" generally lasted a long time after contact with monotheisms while the nations Paradox describes as "animist" - at least, the Incas and the Mesoamericans - collapsed rather abruptly on contact with Europeans, due more IMO to disease than theology. But the "shamanistic" Iroquois were still a diplomatic partner of the British to 1800, whereas with "annex=yes" in vanilla NA, whichever AI was colonizing North America tended to reach the Mississippi by 1500 in my games. And in Asia the Oirut Horde was just about impossible for the Ming to conquer - the Ming could march their armies around the steppe wherever they wanted as long as they wanted, the Oirut would just graze their horses somewhere else. IMO the Oirut are too easy to conquer even with annex=yes turned off. (An evil modder could simulate that by simply having the Ming map end at the Ming border, and periodically Oirut armies come out of the unknown grassy wastes and start sieging your cities)

I think the Inca collapse is in some ways better represented as the Inca nation breaking, but that's a lot of work to recreate. And of course it's true that noone in Europe was upset because the Spanish had annexed a great kingdom the way they'd have been horrified if 300 people had just grabbed France.


But Mameluks, Golden Horde and Timurids are the three biggest "tribal governments" (although the term is laughable for the Mameluks in particular) and they not only neighbour higher than african tech groups, they're all Muslim tech group themselves, yet they kept their systems of government until they stopped being Mameluks/Golden Horde/Timurids. What you say sounds like an excellent change for the "New World" and African tech group countries rather than tribals per se .

The thing is that Paradox has lumped at least three completely different types of country together in the "tribal" category: Asian horse nomads, the Mameluks, and isolated peoples (whether due to being on the far side of an ocean or being in places where the malaria alone will kill most people from "civilized" countries within a year). These groups don't really have anything in common with each other, and should IMO be separated out.



Well, in vanilla IN there are 4-5 nations that really get affected by these events and modifiers: Timurids, Golden Horde, Mameluks, Incas, and arguably Persians (I don't know about Africa), and only one of these is pagan. I agree that the events are very unrealistic for the Incas, but that's not their point: they're there to keep the Timurids/GH/Mameluks from being superpowers in 1399, and in that respect they're broadly realistic, or at least less unrealistic than not having any such penalties for those countries. Also, in vanilla these modifiers make the Timurids and Golden Horde break up into smaller factions as they historically did (although the time scales are wrong and the successor nations are wrong), and make the Mameluks underperform as they did historically. Now if you've changed things so that "tribal" = "pagan" in your mod, obviously these events/modifiers are going to be completely out of place.

I've been playing around with these events from vanilla IN a lot, and have gotten them to the point where they are actually getting pretty cool - a tribal nation with an excellent chief can grow nicely while tribal nations with poor chiefs fragment, creating nations that would be in the game if you'd started later anyway . But note that by "tribal nations" I'm talking about the various horse nomads in central Asia - the first change I made to the vanilla vanilla event/modifiers was "not = { tag = INC }"

I enjoy all kinds of comments, even if they are insults on the mod

I am not realy sure, but one of my ideas about why south american nations/tribes collapsed faster is because they had a more structure based society. This means that they did not want to leave thier temples behind and flee from battle. most north american tribes were used to packing up the whole village and moving every year or season. they could easily flee battle and adapt to a new land.

I agree there there are different kinds of 'tribal' nations. Inca for instance actualy had real government systems. and the asian or muslim 'tribals' are also very different. I must say I have not done much work on asian 'tribals' but most of them do benefit from the whole world changes I made concerning pagans or 'tribals'.

I have a few methods for keeping nations from getting too big and dominating thier region. this is another reason why I chose to remove the tribal nerfs. TN is still like vanilla in the sense that there is tribal pagans and tribal muslims. There is also methods in TN for breaking up large nations .

Cool, If you end up playing TN and liking it, keep giving us your ideas or maybe just tell us about your game experience

Thanks for the comments.

EDIT: do you think the asian tribals should remain 'tribal' longer? or is it plausible for them to chaneg to monarchies? maybe I should make a new tribal government type for them.

[BritNavFan]

I think the Mameluks should have a non-"tribal" government. If you look at all the other "tribals", they're either isolated (New World, African), or non-urbanized. The Mameluks rule Cairo, a huge ancient city with knowledge of paper and algebra, one of the few not sacked by the Mongols. My nick for their government is praetorian_sultanate, because the military unit surrounding the ruler has a disproportionate amount of influence on the selection of a new one. I get the impression (in my very vague knowledge of Muslim history) that they're not the only example of such a government: the late Abbassid Caliphs are another, as are one phase of the Ottomans when the Jannissaries had excessive influence. So they should be something that a monarchy could evolve into or away from. They'd probably get a tech penalty (because such soldiers generally are more concerned with keeping the status quo than innovation, also, the Mameluks thought they had the best army in the world because it was the only one to beat the Mongols in the 13th Century, so why mess with perfection?); on the other hand, they'd probably get a morale bonus too (the soldiers know the State is theirs). No royal marriages, since everyone knows that the ruler owes their power to the soldiers and not their mother's foreign relatives.

I'd keep the Asiatic tribals tribal unless exceptional circumstances happened, such as Babur settling down to rule Delhi (forming the Mughals), or the <whichever> Sheep compromising with the settled Persians to form their theocracy. In EU3 terms, the Ottomans had already left tribal government, but they'd been dealing with, marrying, and ruling East Romans for a long time. The horse nomad tribals had lived with the knowledge of non-tribals for a long time, and if they remained "tribal" it was because city or farm life probably, and quite justifiably, didn't seem too appealing to them.

On the other hand, the isolated tribals should get the option of new government types pretty quickly once they come in contact with outsiders, since like the "civilized" Eurasians they're trying to run cities and farms for the benefit of the society of citizens and farmers: they just haven't had nearly as many people to compare notes with as the Eurasians have. The horse nomads just weren't trying to do that. Now the Navajo, despite being pagan and New World, might play more like the Central Asian horse nomads.

==========================================

Here's a couple of (really) minor map bugs I noticed because they are bugs in vanilla too. The province of Armenia (419) should be discovered by the Eastern tech group so that the Ottomans, the Georgians, and the Armenians know where it is. Provinces adjacent to it (411 and 415) could be known to Eastern tech groups too; they're only two provinces away from the Georgians and Roman and Greek armies had marched all over them in antiquity. The province of Iraq-i-Arab (410) should be known to the Ottomans, at the moment, if you load a game as the Ottomans, Iraq-i-Arab is one of two spots of terra incognita surrounded by known provinces (the other is Armenia).

There are four provinces in India that have no forts, and because they have consecutive numbers I think someone at Paradox accidentally skipped a few numbers while adding forts to a billion province files. They are 544, 545, 546, and 547. 545 in particular is legendary in Indian folklore as a place with a lot of forts in the 17th Century, but these provinces never have forts added.

[Darken]

I think the Mameluks should have a non-"tribal" government. If you look at all the other "tribals", they're either isolated (New World, African), or non-urbanized. The Mameluks rule Cairo, a huge ancient city with knowledge of paper and algebra, one of the few not sacked by the Mongols. My nick for their government is praetorian_sultanate, because the military unit surrounding the ruler has a disproportionate amount of influence on the selection of a new one. I get the impression (in my very vague knowledge of Muslim history) that they're not the only example of such a government: the late Abbassid Caliphs are another, as are one phase of the Ottomans when the Jannissaries had excessive influence. So they should be something that a monarchy could evolve into or away from. They'd probably get a tech penalty (because such soldiers generally are more concerned with keeping the status quo than innovation, also, the Mameluks thought they had the best army in the world because it was the only one to beat the Mongols in the 13th Century, so why mess with perfection?); on the other hand, they'd probably get a morale bonus too (the soldiers know the State is theirs). No royal marriages, since everyone knows that the ruler owes their power to the soldiers and not their mother's foreign relatives.

I'd keep the Asiatic tribals tribal unless exceptional circumstances happened, such as Babur settling down to rule Delhi (forming the Mughals), or the <whichever> Sheep compromising with the settled Persians to form their theocracy. In EU3 terms, the Ottomans had already left tribal government, but they'd been dealing with, marrying, and ruling East Romans for a long time. The horse nomad tribals had lived with the knowledge of non-tribals for a long time, and if they remained "tribal" it was because city or farm life probably, and quite justifiably, didn't seem too appealing to them.

On the other hand, the isolated tribals should get the option of new government types pretty quickly once they come in contact with outsiders, since like the "civilized" Eurasians they're trying to run cities and farms for the benefit of the society of citizens and farmers: they just haven't had nearly as many people to compare notes with as the Eurasians have. The horse nomads just weren't trying to do that. Now the Navajo, despite being pagan and New World, might play more like the Central Asian horse nomads.

==========================================

Here's a couple of (really) minor map bugs I noticed because they are bugs in vanilla too. The province of Armenia (419) should be discovered by the Eastern tech group so that the Ottomans, the Georgians, and the Armenians know where it is. Provinces adjacent to it (411 and 415) could be known to Eastern tech groups too; they're only two provinces away from the Georgians and Roman and Greek armies had marched all over them in antiquity. The province of Iraq-i-Arab (410) should be known to the Ottomans, at the moment, if you load a game as the Ottomans, Iraq-i-Arab is one of two spots of terra incognita surrounded by known provinces (the other is Armenia).

There are four provinces in India that have no forts, and because they have consecutive numbers I think someone at Paradox accidentally skipped a few numbers while adding forts to a billion province files. They are 544, 545, 546, and 547. 545 in particular is legendary in Indian folklore as a place with a lot of forts in the 17th Century, but these provinces never have forts added.

ok, I just want to clarify what you are suggesting. I will probably add a new government type for Mameluks if needed.

is there another EU3 government that the mameluks could use that is close to the real thing? or do I need to make a new one?

if I make a new government type, only Mameluks should have it? what is the most proper name for this new government (the one you suggested?)? how sure are you about the tech penalties, morale bonuses ect? I dont want to get carried away here and make new governments just for minor differences but if the Mameluks realy had a very unique government than I agree that I need to make a new government type for them. what governments should be allowed to change to this new government and what governments should this new one be allowed to convert to?

right now, isolated tribals usualy get new government options quickly after meeting other nations.

I have fixed the bugs you reported for the next TN release (8.46). Thanks for the bug reports.