• 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.
I'm not missing anything because Morocco has Tangiers for about half the game if things work historically.

I guess we're coming at this from two different attitudes. Mine is that the ports themselves justify their inclusion and that Paradox screwed up by omitting them. I don't actually think that adding it is going to materially effect the game. And your attitude is prove that this is going to improve the game. Is that fairly accurate?

So let's find out if they impact the game in any adverse way. I'm embroiled in a game of Alt-Iberia right now that's unlikely to be completed for a couple of weeks, but let's put it into the beta so the usual suspects can run some test games and see what impact it actually has.
 
sturmvogel said:
I'm not missing anything because Morocco has Tangiers for about half the game if things work historically.

I guess we're coming at this from two different attitudes. Mine is that the ports themselves justify their inclusion and that Paradox screwed up by omitting them. I don't actually think that adding it is going to materially effect the game. And your attitude is prove that this is going to improve the game. Is that fairly accurate?

So let's find out if they impact the game in any adverse way. I'm embroiled in a game of Alt-Iberia right now that's unlikely to be completed for a couple of weeks, but let's put it into the beta so the usual suspects can run some test games and see what impact it actually has.


the port will increase the value of the province by +4 due to its connection with the capital is one issue


v.VI.A) Number of Ports - Each homeport adds +4 for each increment of base tax in the province. Homeports are ports owned on the same continent as nation's capital or land connected to the capital. Sub-city colonial ports also give a bonus based on what the base tax in the province will be once a city is established. "Number of Ports" has changed since 1.08 where the "Number of Ports" contribution was +8 for all homeports.

Note on homeports: The recognition of change in homeports due to a port gained or lost to events, vassalization, defection, or declaration of independence is not realized until the game is reloaded or a war is concluded; peace between any two nations will do including the peace that may have resulted in gain or loss or ports. Similarly, the effect on homeports due to a new land connection to ports of another continent is realized at the conclusion of a war or a reload. The effect of a severed land connection to another continent is only realized on reloading the game. The effect of new colonial ports built is immediate.


2. for what reason does morocco need more than one port , matter of fact why do they need one at all, they bascially sometimes get involved in POR or CAS wars with granada
 
Interesting, I hadn't realized that adding a port did anything at all.

To my mind the geography is fundamental to the game. Tangiers/Ceuta were significant ports during the game period. Problems like those that you cite should be dealt with some other way; removing the port is the wrong way to handle the issue, no matter how easy or appealing it might be.

Toio said:
the port will increase the value of the province by +4 due to its connection with the capital is one issue


v.VI.A) Number of Ports - Each homeport adds +4 for each increment of base tax in the province. Homeports are ports owned on the same continent as nation's capital or land connected to the capital. Sub-city colonial ports also give a bonus based on what the base tax in the province will be once a city is established. "Number of Ports" has changed since 1.08 where the "Number of Ports" contribution was +8 for all homeports.

Note on homeports: The recognition of change in homeports due to a port gained or lost to events, vassalization, defection, or declaration of independence is not realized until the game is reloaded or a war is concluded; peace between any two nations will do including the peace that may have resulted in gain or loss or ports. Similarly, the effect on homeports due to a new land connection to ports of another continent is realized at the conclusion of a war or a reload. The effect of a severed land connection to another continent is only realized on reloading the game. The effect of new colonial ports built is immediate.


2. for what reason does morocco need more than one port , matter of fact why do they need one at all, they bascially sometimes get involved in POR or CAS wars with granada
 
this is also an issue

Blockades increase the weariness of the defenders of a fortress. The blockade must be in force when the cannon fires. If a blockade is not in effect on a port province when the cannon fires, defenders become less weary by the same amount as weariness would increase in a month where a blockade is in effect. The amount of the gain or loss in weariness is 0.3. It takes increments of 1.0 change in weariness to potentially affect the outcome of a siege. So a blockade must be in effect for a minimum of four months in a row for any siege benefit. After three more months of consistent blockade, there is an improved benefit. Three or four months later, there is another improved benefit, and so on. A port province, not on the plains, with a medium fortress or higher will never fall to a siege unless the port is consistently blockaded or a siege bonus is applied using artillery or a leader with a siege stat.

last sentence is important, a port province

since a blockade only takes effect after 4 straight months, then the desert province of torknul will never fall
 
I didn't say we should take away Tangiers port...in fact if anything, someone should spend energy ensuring that Portugal takes it.

And yea, you're right. I don't see the point in adding things that make no difference. We've decided not to represent Portuguese influence in Toubkal and with that, we kick out the Portuguese ports.
 
Garbon said:
I didn't say we should take away Tangiers port...in fact if anything, someone should spend energy ensuring that Portugal takes it.

And yea, you're right. I don't see the point in adding things that make no difference. We've decided not to represent Portuguese influence in Toubkal and with that, we kick out the Portuguese ports.

Tangiers issue should be how it was a few versions ago with verde also given to POR at start...this version is too unreliable in giving/discovering verde for POR

and while on the issue of ports....why does'nt anatolia get a port, the ottomans had 2 in the area ........1320 IMRALI .........and ........ 1333 KIOS ( now called Gemlik)
 
Last edited:
Toio said:
Tangiers issue should be how it was a few versions ago with verde also given to POR at start...this version is too unreliable in giving/discovering verde for POR

and while on the issue of ports....why does anatolia get a port, the ottomans had 2 in the area ........1320 IMRALI .........and ........ 1333 KIOS ( now called Gemlik)
Portugal doesn't need another province that yields only 40% of base revenue at the beginning of the game. Not when she needs to tech as rapidly as possible. Besides Ceuta isn't much bigger than Diu or Bassein and doesn't come close to justifying giving the whole province away.
Cape Verde isn't critical for the Portuguese to find. They'll find one or another of the West African provinces and can use it to base explorers. Why shouldn't Anatolia have multiple ports? What's the geography?
 
sturmvogel said:
Portugal doesn't need another province that yields only 40% of base revenue at the beginning of the game. Not when she needs to tech as rapidly as possible. Besides Ceuta isn't much bigger than Diu or Bassein and doesn't come close to justifying giving the whole province away.
Cape Verde isn't critical for the Portuguese to find. They'll find one or another of the West African provinces and can use it to base explorers. Why shouldn't Anatolia have multiple ports? What's the geography?


On anatolia.......I only want one port as the 2 ports where only 8 miles apart


on verde.......the benefit is the fact that with a 1 colony in verde POR will spend their money on it , instead of investing money in senegal, louka ets where they seem to always fail

I agree with ceuta is very small, but the question was about tangiers .......the scenario we had for it was good in that hardly any wars took place between POR and Fez (old times)
 
Toio said:
On anatolia.......I only want one port as the 2 ports where only 8 miles apart


on verde.......the benefit is the fact that with a 1 colony in verde POR will spend their money on it , instead of investing money in senegal, louka ets where they seem to always fail

I agree with ceuta is very small, but the question was about tangiers .......the scenario we had for it was good in that hardly any wars took place between POR and Fez (old times)
Have you looked at all the ports in each province, rather than just the named cities? Considering how indeterminate province boundaries are in EU I'd generally lump those two together.

Nothing says you can't find Verde, it's just not handed to you ahistorically :) In my current game of Alt-Iberia I'm in 1586 and still haven't found Noukachott although I haven't committed any conquistadors to finding it.

Tangiers wasn't taken until 1479 or so by Afonso V so why should we award it to Portugal? And your memory seems faulty as Portugal and Morocco started in a state of war until I suggested an alternative. How many wars have you seen between them with the current setup? I've yet to see one in any of test games. :(
 
I see wars between Portugal and Morocco very often.

I don't see any problem with Cape verde as it is currently. Portugal always colonize but it is a fact it is not always at the "right" date.

About a port for Anatolia, if accurate, what are the benefits for OE?
 
YodaMaster said:
I see wars between Portugal and Morocco very often.

I don't see any problem with Cape verde as it is currently. Portugal always colonize but it is a fact it is not always at the "right" date.

About a port for Anatolia, if accurate, what are the benefits for OE?

i only see 25% of games where verde is colonized, currently have a game where , its 1580 and the only colonized area for POR on the west coast of africa is Leone and lubango

east coast is fine and also south america

exploration is excellent so its not this area which is a problem.


as for anatolia, , extra ships and more commerce for the province
 
New event to deal with the problem that Morocco often doesn't try to take out Songhai, as they agree to be diplo-vassalized...

Code:
#(1511-1580)#Disturbing reports from the south
event = {
	id = 232042
	trigger = {
		owned = { province = 1495 data = SON } #Timbuktu
		OR = {
			owned = { province = 1494 data = SON } #Bure
			owned = { province = 1490 data = SON } #Bambuk
			owned = { province = 1489 data = SON } #Jenne
		}
	}
	random = no
	country = MOR
	name = "EVENTNAME232042" #Disturbing reports from the south
	desc = "EVENTHIST232042"
	#-#

	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1511 }
	offset = 250
	deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1580 }

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME232042A" #Perhaps the rumors are untrue...
		command = { type = relation which = SON value = -150 }
	}
}
There was much alarm when news reached Morocco that a new empire had taken control of the prosperous city of Timbuktu and was taking steps to conquer the Sudan.
 
I'd suggest the following text change. The current text is a little jarring with its modern phrasing.

Code:
#(1503-1520) A pirate by any other name
event = {
	id = 373001 #triggered by POR_260108
	random = no
	country = ZAN
	name = "EVENTNAME373001" #A pirate by any other name
	desc = "EVENTHIST373001"
	#-#

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME373001A" #[color=red]Realpolitick[/color] [color=yellow]Prudence[/color] dictates that we swallow our pride
		command = { type = relation which = POR value = 100 }
		command = { type = treasury value = -25 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME373001B" #We must defend ourselves
		command = { type = treasury value = -25 }
		command = { type = stability value = -1 } #unhappy merchants
		command = { type = casusbelli which = POR value = 12 }
		command = { type = relation which = POR value = -100 }
	}
}
Despite its ill-treatment at the hands of Ravasco, Zanzibar recognized Portugal's naval dominance and remained friendly with the Portuguese until Portugal could no longer protect it.
 
Two reworked events for vassalization and annexation of Al-Djazaïr by OE:
Code:
#(1525-1554) The Ottoman protection of Al-Djazaïr
event = {
	id = 3651
	trigger = {
		exists = TUR
		NOT = {
			vassal = { country = XHO country = ALD }
			vassal = { country = TUN country = ALD }
			vassal = { country = MOR country = ALD }
		}
		NOT = {
			vassal = { country = ALD country = TUR }
		}
		[COLOR=Yellow]OR = {
			owned = { province = 734 data = -1 } #Orania
			owned = { province = 737 data = -1 } #Al Djazair
		}[/COLOR]
	}
	random = no
	country = ALD
	name = "EVENTNAME3651" #The Ottoman protection of Al-Djazaïr
	desc = "EVENTHIST3651"
	#-#

	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1525 }
	offset = 30
	deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 1554 }

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME3651A" #Accept the protection of the Grand Sultan
		command = { type = trigger which = 3372 } #TUR: The Ottoman protection of Al-Djazaïr
		command = { type = dynastic which = TUR }
		command = { type = treasury value = 200 }
		command = { type = relation which = TUR value = 100 }
		command = { type = relation which = XHO value = -100 }
		command = { type = relation which = TUN value = -100 }
		command = { type = relation which = SPA value = -100 }
		command = { type = casusbelli which = TUN value = 24 }
		command = { type = casusbelli which = XHO value = 24 }
		command = { type = casusbelli which = SPA value = 24 }
		command = { type = stability value = 1 }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME3651B" #Decline the Sultan's offer
		command = { type = relation which = TUR value = -100 }
		command = { type = galleys which = -1 value = 15 }
		command = { type = transports which = -1 value = 5 }
		command = { type = stability value = -2 }
	}
}
#-#A Turkish pirate of name Aruj, took over Al-Djazaîr in 1516 when he defeated the Spaniards. He then killed the local pasha and proclaimed himself pasha. He was known as Baba Aruj, or father Aruj. This was translated by the Spaniards as Barbarroja (Barbarossa in Italian, or Red beard). He was driven out of Tlemcen by the Spaniards and killed in 1518. However his brother, Khayr ad-Din Barbarossa, succeeded him. He sought protection from the Ottoman Empire and was appointed beylerbey. Driven out in 1520 by the Hafsids, he returned in 1525, massacring Arabs and Kabyles who resisted him. Under his rule Al-Djazaîr accepted the overlordship of the Ottoman Empire and continued the fight against the Spaniards, the Hafsids of Tunis and the Zayyanids of Tlemcen.

Code:
#(1546-1600) Al-Djazaîr becomes part of the Ottoman empire
#by Fodoron
event = {
	id = 105002
	trigger = {
		vassal = { country = TUR country = ALD }
		[COLOR=Yellow]OR = {
			owned = { province = 734 data = -1 } #Orania
			owned = { province = 737 data = -1 } #Al Djazair
			neighbour = TUR
		}[/COLOR]
	}
	random = no
	country = ALD
	name = "EVENTNAME105002" #Al-Djazaîr becomes part of the Ottoman Empire
	desc = "EVENTHIST105002"
	#-#

	date = { day = 4 month = july year = 1546 }
	offset = 50
	deathdate = { day = 0 month = january year = 1600 }

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME105002A" #Let the sultan name our ruler (End Game)
		command = { type = relation which = TUR value = 50 }
		command = { type = trigger which = 50019 } #TUR: Al-Djazaîr becomes part of the Ottoman Empire
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME105002B" #We shall decide who rules us
		command = { type = relation which = TUR value = -50 }
	}
}
#-#At the death of Khayr ad-Din Barbarossa in Istanbul, the sultan named his son Hassan Pasha the new Pasha of Al-Djazaîr. For over a century, the rulers of Al-Djazaîr were chosen by the Porte, incorporating it to the domains of the Ottoman Empire.

Both events are really strange, especially second one when Al-Djazaîr has no acces to the sea and all surrounding provinces not owned by OE.

Other change:
Code:
#(1527-1572) Barbarossa attacks Tunis
#by Fodoron
event = {
	id = 105001
	trigger = {
		exists = TUN
		[COLOR=Yellow]exists = TUR[/COLOR]
		event = 3372 #TUR: The Ottoman Vassalization of Al-Djazaîr
		NOT = {
			[COLOR=Yellow]war = { country = TUR country = ALD }[/COLOR]
			war = { country = TUN country = ALD }
			vassal = { country = TUN country = ALD }
			vassal = { country = ALD country = TUN }
		}
	}
	random = no
	country = ALD
	name = "EVENTNAME105001" #Barbarossa attacks Tunis
	desc = "EVENTHIST105001"
	#-#

	date = { day = 0 month = january year = 1527 }
	offset = 100
	deathdate = { day = 0 month = january year = 1572 }

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME105001A" #Attack Tunis
		command = { type = casusbelli which = TUN value = 24 }
		command = { type = relation which = TUN value = -50 }
		command = { type = INF which = -1 value = 10000 } #Janissaries
		command = { type = CAV which = -1 value = 4000 } #Sipahi
		command = { type = trigger which = 300001 } #TUN: Tunis under attack from Barbarossa
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME105001B" #Not worth it
		command = { type = stability value = 1 }
	}
}
#-#Khayr ad-Din Barbarossa was the main Ottoman instrument in North Africa. After obtaining Ottoman support he attacked the Hafsids, conquering Tunis in 1534. The deposed Hafsid pasha, al-Hassan, asked for help from Carlos of Spain, who sent a powerful fleet and recaptured Tunis, restoring al-Hassan as his vassal.
 
I'd like to suggest expansion of known maps for Ethiopia to the whole Mediterranean. Both Gabre Masqal II and Zara Yaqob sent emissaries to Aragon, for example, with Gabre Masqal II even asking for a royal marriage and for Alfons to send cultural missionaries to his court, much like those Portugal sent to Kongo. Here's the part about Zara Yaqob:
Zara Yaqob sent a diplomatic mission to Europe (1450), led by a Sicilian Pietro Rombulo who had previously been successful in a mission to India, specifically asking for skilled labor. Rombulo first visited Pope Nicholas V, but his ultimate goal was the court of Alfonso V of Aragon, who responded favorably.
 
I would also like to suggest a standardization of monarchs who traditionally assumed new names upon ascending to the throne, such as in case of China and Ethiopia. Here's an example of the first entries in their monarchs files with given name in yellow and throne name in red:
China: Yongle (Cheng Zu)

Ethiopia: Gabre Masqal II Yeshaq

Chinese standard is nice but it is the same as the standard for regency so it may be confusing. Ethiopian standard is extremely confusing as you have no idea which part is the given and which one the throne name. I suggest a modification of Chinese standard with a different kind of brackets for given name, for example:

throne name [given name]
 
Lord Grave said:
I'd like to suggest expansion of known maps for Ethiopia to the whole Mediterranean. Both Gabre Masqal II and Zara Yaqob sent emissaries to Aragon, for example, with Gabre Masqal II even asking for a royal marriage and for Alfons to send cultural missionaries to his court, much like those Portugal sent to Kongo. Here's the part about Zara Yaqob:
It can end in gamey (for players) or strange (for AI) results only because Ethiopia is an Orthodox country that will be able to enter RM or alliances with European countries. Not really wanted even if we know some embassies existed.

Better wait for Portuguese explorers from the other side a century later.

Btw, Ethiopia has a devoted regional thread. See list here.
 
Last edited:
Lord Grave said:
Chinese standard is nice but it is the same as the standard for regency so it may be confusing. Ethiopian standard is extremely confusing as you have no idea which part is the given and which one the throne name. I suggest a modification of Chinese standard with a different kind of brackets for given name, for example:

throne name [given name]
I agree there is a confusion between Chinese monarchs and standard for regencies. Better not use [] reserved for flags.
We could use "throne name <given name>"
 
YodaMaster said:
I agree there is a confusion between Chinese monarchs and standard for regencies. Better not use [] reserved for flags.
We could use "throne name <given name>"

Ok, anything is fine for me as long as it makes sense. I'll compile a list of changes for Ethiopian monarchs and also check if they are historical. There are some very conflicting lists of rulers from Solomonic dynasty, especially during the swift series of Zara Yaqob's brothers on the throne. I'll also check if Chinese monarchs are spelled ok.
 
YodaMaster said:
It can end in gamey (for players) or strange (for AI) results only because Ethiopia is an Orthodox country that will be able to enter RM or alliances with European countries. Not really wanted even if we know some embassies existed.

This reminds me that I need to put together the new known province set for middle eastern nations in 1419, as the alliances between France, Balkh, and Sindh are getting tedious.