Peter's Age of Explorations v1.1.1 Released

[Damocles]

If it's just the ukraine neither should have it. That area was notorious for it's many revolts... There was a revolt atleast once every other year. Every tenth year or so they'd ignite to real big rebelions. This happened to both Poland and Russia.

Yeah, but Poland is extremely weak compared to the strength they actually wielded, and Russia is already perfectly strong. Now everything Poland had going for it against Russia has pretty much been done away with by Peter's scenario. Giving Russia mongol AND ruthenian is really unbalanced.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Towards the very end, Russia has an event giving them Ugric.

Not in my /db/major_rus.txt, I don't think so, unless my memory utterly fails me. Where do you find it?

Yeah, but Poland is extremely weak compared to the strength they actually wielded, and Russia is already perfectly strong. Now everything Poland had going for it against Russia has pretty much been done away with by Peter's scenario. Giving Russia mongol AND ruthenian is really unbalanced.

I would say that Poland is extremely STRONG early on compared to the strength they actually wielded. The united Poland-Lithuania results in a state that is as strong DEFENSIVELY as the separate though cooperating nations of Poland and Lithuania was, but much, much, stronger OFFENSIVELY than was the case. If anything is a monster, it is the offensive power of the current Polish setup in 1520.

 

[Damocles]

Not in my /db/major_rus.txt, I don't think so, unless my memory utterly fails me. Where do you find it?


I would say that Poland is extremely STRONG early on compared to the strength they actually wielded. The united Poland-Lithuania results in a state that is as strong DEFENSIVELY as the separate though cooperating nations of Poland and Lithuania was, but much, much, stronger OFFENSIVELY than was the case. If anything is a monster, it is the offensive power of the current Polish setup in 1520.

Considering that Russia is given half of Lithuania based on a map that depicted land they controlled for a single campaign, and that Russia begins with equal tech and higher manpower as well as a mono-religious state, I feel that nascent baby Russia has even more offensive power then Poland-Lithuania in it's supposed prime.

 

[Damocles]

Ah, it seems that in one of the patches the Russian event was modified. The Anjala league used to give Ugric culture, I believe if option A was chosen. It was one of the last events that anyone ever gets around 1809 and completely worthless, it was just mentioned to round out the list. Since a Russia starting with Mongol, Ruthenian and Russian, would then gain Altai, Greek and Ugric by event. I suppose they only end up with five cultures instead of six.

 

[Norrefeldt]

All in all, very nice changes, look forward to trying it.

 

[Medicine Man]

I can see Russia having Mongol by 1650-1700.

I can't see Russia having Ruthenian until post 1820.

And yes, it would've been nice to see the Ottomans fixed :/. I am tired of having Super Turk in every game, with tech better then the Europeans.

The only real solution to this is to have the Ottoman Empire get dropped into the muslim tech group in 1615 regardless of what option the player chooses. Sadly this is really beyond the scope of PE's campaign.

Edit: It is also a pity that we can't have the Empire of Russia gain his Ruthenian culture with the Russian Church becoming independant in 1588 (option a).

 

[unmerged(10146)]

Some very interested additions:

- knowledge of Isfahan and surrounding area opens some nice opportunities: could Venice perhaps take one Turkish Red Sea port when she has an explorer...
- with lowered Spanish presence in Caribbean competition there a bit more realistic option, especially if Spain wants to secure Aztec and Incas gold on time

...and just a few observations

Portugal (in order of importance):
- give Portugal one more explorer between 1520 and 1530 or 1530 and 1540; the 1520 scenario gives Portugal only one historical explorer for 10 years (De Queros 1515-1530) and than for a VERY long time nothing (Antonio Fernandes 1602-1624); a human player would by 1520 explore more with 1492-1520 historical explorers, as will human players with all other countres that are yet to receive their historical explorers
- the same trade technology as Venice and Genoa (either raise Portugal to 5 or lower the other two to 4)
- manpower/year too low (4) comparing to Venice (10) and Denmark (8); Portugal has a lot to protect i.e. maintain a relatively large standing army, especially since mercenaries are not reliable source and possible only in Europe
- Goa could perhaps stay a low population Catholic colony, but not too important really

England:
- manpower boos really a bit too high

General:
- in the end of year (eyr) section under navy size for Portugal should be 73 and for Spain should be 79

One more excellent work Peter

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Considering that Russia is given half of Lithuania based on a map that depicted land they controlled for a single campaign, and that Russia begins with equal tech and higher manpower as well as a mono-religious state, I feel that nascent baby Russia has even more offensive power then Poland-Lithuania in it's supposed prime.

1520:
Polish tech: 10/7/3/2
Manpower modified by population: 26,000
Yearly manpower: 31,000

Russian tech: 7/3/3/2
Manpower modified by population: 25,750
Yearly manpower: 30,000

Tech and manpower statement falls.

Historically, do you really consider 1520 the Polish-Lithuanian prime, even before their official union. I am curious.

Polish Renaissance Warfare, 1450-1699. Regarding manpower, if anything, Russian manpower is much, much, too low considering the numbers given in the referenced text, as Russia typically fielded three to six times as many troops as the Poles and Lithuanians. Even with the addition of all Russian cultured lands, there is no way Russia in the PAoE1520 can reach such figures. Poland often won great battles while significantly outnumbered, not so much because of superior technology (though that was up to the standards of the day), but because of superior commanders, organisation, and cavalry - something that is modeled in EU2.


- Damocles, if the general feel amongst players is that Russia is too strong now, it will definitely be tuned down in the next release. Until now, however, that does not seem to be the case, and I do not find your arguments convincing. Feel free, however, to heap up the evidence. Sooner or later you will almost certainly find something I cannot refute, if nothing else then because I am probably lazier than you are on this particular subject.

- But do not try the "investing since levels from the 1492 setup will not bring Russian tech to the current levels, therefore they are too high" that you have mentioned in another thread, please. That is so selective that it is laughable, since it goes for ALL nations, and was not a consideration for tech allocation. (E.g. Poland in 1492 has ETA for trade 3 sometime in 1540, assuming no other techs are invested in). Applying it selectively to the countries you think are too strong must be considered a joke.

 

[Damocles]

1520:
Polish tech: 10/7/3/2
Manpower modified by population: 26,000
Yearly manpower: 31,000

Russian tech: 7/3/3/2
Manpower modified by population: 25,750
Yearly manpower: 30,000

Tech and manpower statement falls.

Historically, do you really consider 1520 the Polish-Lithuanian prime, even before their official union. I am curious.

Polish Renaissance Warfare, 1450-1699. Regarding manpower, if anything, Russian manpower is much, much, too low considering the numbers given in the referenced text, as Russia typically fielded three to six times as many troops as the Poles and Lithuanians. Even with the addition of all Russian cultured lands, there is no way Russia in the PAoE1520 can reach such figures. Poland often won great battles while significantly outnumbered, not so much because of superior technology (though that was up to the standards of the day), but because of superior commanders, organisation, and cavalry - something that is modeled in EU2.


- Damocles, if the general feel amongst players is that Russia is too strong now, it will definitely be tuned down in the next release. Until now, however, that does not seem to be the case, and I do not find your arguments convincing. Feel free, however, to heap up the evidence. Sooner or later you will almost certainly find something I cannot refute, if nothing else then because I am probably lazier than you are on this particular subject.

- But do not try the "investing since levels from the 1492 setup will not bring Russian tech to the current levels, therefore they are too high" that you have mentioned in another thread, please. That is so selective that it is laughable, since it goes for ALL nations, and was not a consideration for tech allocation. (E.g. Poland in 1492 has ETA for trade 3 sometime in 1540, assuming no other techs are invested in). Applying it selectively to the countries you think are too strong must be considered a joke.

Several people besides myself have mentioned that giving Russia ruthenian culture off the bat is too much. Thats what I have most problem with.

 

[Nikolai II]

Several people besides myself have mentioned that giving Russia ruthenian culture off the bat is too much. Thats what I have most problem with.

Since it can't be granted later it must be granted at once - and as long as Poland has ruthenian culture then Russia should too..

 

[Damocles]

Since it can't be granted later it must be granted at once - and as long as Poland has ruthenian culture then Russia should too..

A) It *can* be granted later. Better to do an edit then have a very flawed scenario.

B) There is no comparison between Russia and Poland. Poland owned the provinces for 300 years of the scenario. Russia owned them for 20 :/

 

[Hive]

Several people besides myself have mentioned that giving Russia ruthenian culture off the bat is too much. Thats what I have most problem with.

Yup. I agree. Mongol is more fair, but I don't even think they should start with that. I'd prefer to edit both in.

I do, however, agree that if Poland have Ruthenian so should Russia. It doesn't matter if Poland held Ukraine longer than Russia, they both had the same problems with it.

 

[Ayeshteni]

I like the look of this. Will d/l when I get the chance.

Specifically like the Assurances of Safety Austria give to all HRE members, will be stealing that idea mate (whether to 1805 or 1820 )

yours
Ayeshteni

 

[unmerged(18425)]

Any chance the OE gets a fixed muslim tech?

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Any chance the OE gets a fixed muslim tech?

I am not going to decide on that one until I see whether EU2 v1.08 has addressed the issue (when it is released).

 

[Stonewall]

Excellent work Peter. The danish and Venetian changes are much much needed to keep these coutries playable longer term. I am very interested to see how the increased British manpower affects England's playing style in the later game. Before the changes the Brits would have a base 53 manpower. Now, once Britain is unified, it becomes 84. I think it definitely makes England *much* more powerful and makes Scotland very much worth taking before the union event. I'm interested to see how this change pans out in people's games.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Several people besides myself have mentioned that giving Russia ruthenian culture off the bat is too much. Thats what I have most problem with.

Enough people have noted their opposition, Ruthenian culture will be removed from Russia in the next release. [Poland will of course keep it. I AM however, considering removing or reducing some of the many taxation boosts I applied to Poland early in the development process]

(Though I will note in passing that your 20 years Russian ownership claim falls 26 years short of the mark, since Russia historically held 6/8 Ruthenian provinces already from 1773)

 

[Damocles]

(Though I will note in passing that your 20 years Russian ownership claim falls 26 years short of the mark, since Russia historically held 6/8 Ruthenian provinces already from 1773)

My mistake. It would be fairer to note that Russia only gained any Ruthenian provinces from the late 18th century partioning of Poland.

 

[Nikolai II]

I AM however, considering removing or reducing some of the many taxation boosts I applied to Poland early in the development process]

Can't they keep the tax boosts and loose the ruthenian culture?

 

[unmerged(18866)]

Well, dear Peter, I find changes applied by you a complete disaster.

First of all, I'd like to hear an answer for one question.
Are your changes going to increase historical accuracy of game, or you just want to unify all nations?

For me, the first option would be obvious, because if I'd like to play a game, where everyone starts from the same position and have the same power, I'd play some Civilization-like game. In my perception, huge advanage of EU was exactly this "historical flavour", so that I can feel like real monarch, and all my achievements can be regarded in compraison with reality. This gave a chance of fullfilment to both huge Spain and small Brandenbourg players.

I was a great fan of your first scenario (v1.1.0), but I can't look at the newest patch. It is completly unnatural and tendentious. They lead to nothing more than total unification, where everyone is equal, despite historical nuances. For example? Venice is small and quite weak. So, why should Venice player worry about good diplomacy, strong trade economy etc.? Just give Venteo huge fortress, huge manpower and huge treasury. England is weaker than France (of course in terms for manpower etc.), and why should it be? Let's just give them bigger MP and everything will be settled.
You just take back the problem of holding balance from players, and give it to pre-set scenario conditions.

Going further, I find some other of your changes completly biased and disrespectful for history. I have some experiences with editing scenarios (for my own purposes, using of course your 1.1.0 as a base) and I have never thought, that "giving of the bat" such huge changes can go so easy. You neglect those, who you don't like.

What was foundation of increasing Denmark MP? This is a nonsense, as Scandinavia has never been densily populated. What will happen in game with Swedish player, but without Danish? Of course, Sweden will have: huge MP, great leaders and perfect position on map (winter, peninsula). Except of the last one, is it in any means historicaly accurate?

Giving Russia mongol and ruthenian culture is even bigger mistake and I can't understand those of you, who agree. Do you know, what the state culture is? If yes, tell me, how can you see mongols in Tzars government, how do you see them living in peace with "ruthenian brothers"? As far as I know, Russian history is history of antagonism beetwen them and Mongols. That it would be "comfortable" to hold mongol culture, and that "there were times, when Russia controlled some mongol areas" doesn't mean, both nations have assimilated. This change definitly overpowers Russia.

Still, in my opinion you've made a fantastic job Peter. I admire your 1520 scenario. But you've totally surprised me. I expected completly different changes and I was afraid of giving you my own ideas and suggestions, as I found them not fully professional (I'm not a Doctor of History ). And now I see your own changes, in my perception, totally amateur. Maybe you
can give some historical basis for them? I don't know everything, so there is a lot points where you can convince me. Or you just wanted to make this scenario more playable in Multiplayer...