Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Aztec Invasion Start Date, and other Ideas

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.
Crusader Kings II 69868 Bug Reports 19707 User Modifications 10588 Suggestions 5969 Tech Support 6361 After Action Reports
Thure said:
This would requiere a mod. And it would make problems with multiplayer. How would you do this with multiplayer? Currently DLC can be played if only the host owns the DLC. But if the game has to load a modded file then everyone would need the DLC to start a multiplayer game.
Click to expand...

But if the host has and SI, but other players do not, the games has to load the Aztec portraits and units, but the multiplayer still work. And why cannot be the apporaparite fies included in base game, but their use being enabled by detection of SI dlc file? Making this bookmark possible will require code change, but it is not impossible to have. And if I paid twice to have ability to play as Aztecs (SI and TOG are required), then I want to also be able to do it ironman. Why bronzeman was created for Rule Designer (5 euro), but we cannot have a additional features for Aztecs (5 euro + 15 euro)?
 
Last edited:
Aztecs should get murderous attrition in europe because there not used to the diseases!
Acutually i bearly played with SI activated, are there any events related to diseases.
 
tkamin said:
But if the host has and SI, but other players do not, the games has to load the Aztec portraits and units, but the multiplayer still work. And why cannot be the apporaparite fies included in base game, but their use being enabled by detection of SI dlc file? Making this bookmark possible will require code change, but it is not impossible to have. And if I paid twice to have ability to play as Aztecs (SI and TOG are required), then I want to also be able to do it ironman. Why bronzeman was created for Rule Designer (5 euro), but we cannot have a additional features for Aztecs (5 euro + 15 euro)?
Click to expand...

What did you mean with bronzeman...? If you mean iron man... ironman didn't work with the ruler designer.

Thiomay said:
Aztecs should get murderous attrition in europe because there not used to the diseases!
Acutually i bearly played with SI activated, are there any events related to diseases.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't it be also the other way around? The Europeans should get sick because of new world diseases? ;)
 
Last edited:
Thure said:
What did you mean with bronzeman...? If you mean iron man... ironman didn't work with the ruler designer.
Click to expand...

We have a ironman mode version that works with Rule Designer: it forces automatic saves but does not give you achievment. This mode is available if we have checksum of the game changed either via Rule Designer or mod, and a few people called is bronzeman on forum.

From 2.0.2 patch notes:
Code: 
2013-12-16: v2.0.2
--------------------

MAJOR
- Added a "Depose Antipope" Casus Belli
- Added an "Antiking" faction. The leader usurps the liege's primary title, deposes the antipope and passes papal investiture. The Pope can be called into the resulting war.
- Not possible to set up an antipope within 50 years of one being forcibly deposed
- Fixed bug in Linux where the game became totally unplayable if you ALT+TAB
[B]- Now possible to play in Ironman mode with the ruler designer and mods (but you won't get achievements)[/B]
- Significantly reduced the amount of event-spawned troops across the board to better reflect the rebalanced levies
- Fixed crash bug in the Mac launcher
- Fixed religion reformation crash
 
tkamin said:
We have a ironman mode version that works with Rule Designer: it forces automatic saves but does not give you achievment. This mode is available if we have checksum of the game changed either via Rule Designer or mod, and a few people called is bronzeman on forum.
Click to expand...

OKay. But this is much easier to implement for Paradox then to add an Aztec start date. And diudn't this allow you to make an Aztec character? :p
 
Thure said:
OKay. But this is much easier to implement for Paradox then to add an Aztec start date. And diudn't this allow you to make an Aztec character? :p
Click to expand...

But why I should not be able to get Holy Smoke achievement if I play as Aztec? In andition to that, I want to have an invasion army, so I will have Aztecs coming from Asia, rather than pacific, because only similar choice are Mongols.

And again, why make you thing that it is easier to implement bronzeman than bookmark with additional history? You just making assumption without seeing actual code of program and from my experience (as programmer) the estimate of the task is more depending on the way that old the code is written than size of feature. I had severals situation where small feature ended as never-ending story, because of dependences in various parts of program.
 
Last edited:
LumberKing said:
The Holy Smokes achievement can be achieved as an Aztec. To become Aztec, you can always swear fealty to the new invading overlord and convert both your culture and religion to that of your liege.
Click to expand...

You can do that? Because as far as I can tell, I have never been able to swear fealty to anyone who isn't my religious group.
 
Thure said:
No. You misunderstand me... It's technically impossible to add an Aztec start date. Start dates aren't own scenarios. They just use the history files. So to make an Aztec start date they need to activate them in the history files... And this would change every start date. Alternate history start dates are impossible.
Click to expand...

I'm no expert in CK2 (EU3 is more my field), but couldn't they be given XYZ in starting provinces/stacks on a date (arbitrarily, January 1st, 1300) and just edit the history files that those provinces are back to original owner on January 2nd, 1300?

You could also add an event to destroy the stacks if Aztec title still exists, though I'm not sure how that would work, and it would be somewhat messy.
 
JosunUrashima said:
You can do that? Because as far as I can tell, I have never been able to swear fealty to anyone who isn't my religious group.
Click to expand...

I forget exactly how the rule works now but you should at least be able to swear fealty to someone who is your de jure liege, regardless of religion. However that rule has changed a lot.

The easier thing to do is to change religion by moving your capital to an Aztec province.
 
Spelf said:
I'm no expert in CK2 (EU3 is more my field), but couldn't they be given XYZ in starting provinces/stacks on a date (arbitrarily, January 1st, 1300) and just edit the history files that those provinces are back to original owner on January 2nd, 1300?

You could also add an event to destroy the stacks if Aztec title still exists, though I'm not sure how that would work, and it would be somewhat messy.
Click to expand...

As I said... Yes it would be possible. But with problems too. The emperor of the Aztecs for exemple needs a birth date earlier then 1300.1.1. But this would mean the emperor is there as courtier somewhere on the map even for people without the DLC. And it would make this date unplayable for everyone without the dlc what would be strange.

Oh and another problem... You can free move between 1066 and 1337. You can't currently not lock a date in this timeline without make every date after this or before this unplayable. You can't lock a single date. (Paradox could find a way for this, of course, but this would be strange for people without the DLC).
 
Thure said:
Shouldn't it be also the other way around? The Europeans should get sick because of new world diseases? ;)
Click to expand...

That's a matter of perspectiv. Is SI mirroring the Conquest of Paradise in every aspect or is it "simulating" a hypothatical aztec invasion? An advanced azthec tech level still wouldn't make them immune to the diseases that killed them historicaly. On the otherhand if the hole thing is an allegory for what happend in the new world, the native europeans should die.
 
Thiomay said:
That's a matter of perspectiv. Is SI mirroring the Conquest of Paradise in every aspect or is it "simulating" a hypothatical aztec invasion? An advanced azthec tech level still wouldn't make them immune to the diseases that killed them historicaly. On the otherhand if the hole thing is an allegory for what happend in the new world, the native europeans should die.
Click to expand...

I think it's just poor coding, so just assume that these are Über-Aztecs immune to most disease.
 
Summercat said:
Don't see why we couldn't have one day in the history files with them being there, then the next day in the history files, not.
Click to expand...

I agree that we should have an Aztec start date, mainly because of the Mongol start date.
 
Jokolytic said:
I think it's just poor coding, so just assume that these are Über-Aztecs immune to most disease.
Click to expand...

If we assume that the Aztec and Inca tech development is caused by conctact with the Vikings (that created Vinland), then they should be as immune to European disseas as Europeans, because int this scenario the Columb Exchange was actually Viking exchange, and the people that performed invasion have outlived first concat with new diseases, when they where bought to America by Vikings.

Edit: Maybe this scenario is not as ahistorical, at it seems: The arival of larger scal Viking colonization, causes a massive plague (like Black Death) and leads to something simliar to renaisance in Americas.
 
Last edited:
Thure said:
As I said... Yes it would be possible. But with problems too. The emperor of the Aztecs for exemple needs a birth date earlier then 1300.1.1. But this would mean the emperor is there as courtier somewhere on the map even for people without the DLC. And it would make this date unplayable for everyone without the dlc what would be strange.

Oh and another problem... You can free move between 1066 and 1337. You can't currently not lock a date in this timeline without make every date after this or before this unplayable. You can't lock a single date. (Paradox could find a way for this, of course, but this would be strange for people without the DLC).
Click to expand...

All that would happen is that the Aztec ruler is given a title for one day in one year until the next day in the history files and then he "dies" the next day. Every date prior to this is fully playable as is every date after, with no effect on gameplay.
 
spartanlemur said:
All that would happen is that the Aztec ruler is given a title for one day in one year until the next day in the history files and then he "dies" the next day. Every date prior to this is fully playable as is every date after, with no effect on gameplay.
Click to expand...

As I said... no. There would still be an Aztec character around in Europe earlier start date. I don't want an Aztec character if I play without SI. His birth date need to be before the Aztec start date.
 
grisamentum said:
I forget exactly how the rule works now but you should at least be able to swear fealty to someone who is your de jure liege, regardless of religion. However that rule has changed a lot.

The easier thing to do is to change religion by moving your capital to an Aztec province.
Click to expand...

Easier said than done. You pretty much have to conquer said province.

Jokolytic said:
I think it's just poor coding, so just assume that these are Über-Aztecs immune to most disease.
Click to expand...

I would say that its actually not that-I would declare them to be the survivors of the depopulation of the America's via the Viking arrival, and that part of the entire reason all those soldiers got sent over is because the New world needs a major influx of people, even if its forced slave labor, to be able to rebuild from a few centuries of losing large chunks of the populace.

tkamin said:
If we assume that the Aztec and Inca tech development is caused by conctact with the Vikings (that created Vinland), then they should be as immune to European disseas as Europeans, because int this scenario the Columb Exchange was actually Viking exchange, and the people that performed invasion have outlived first concat with new diseases, when they where bought to America by Vikings.

Edit: Maybe this scenario is not as ahistorical, at it seems: The arival of larger scal Viking colonization, causes a massive plague (like Black Death) and leads to something simliar to renaisance in Americas.
Click to expand...

European disease killed anywhere between 50% and 90% of the native peoples of the America's. I don't think they would have been able to recover that quickly.

However, I have heard some comments before on the basis that the Viking earlier discovery of the America's is not the actual original POD.
 
I honestly adore the idea of a pod in which the aztecs actually endure the harshness of european diseases and discover how to make / use steel weapons and armor. I wish they would have gotten more love but everyone seems to hate the aztecs. I know its ahistorical as f**k but its still awesome ripping out the english royal family's hearts on the obsidian altars of london lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back