Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

1419.inc changes

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.
Toio

Toio

Field Marshal
6 Badges
Jun 18, 2003
7.699
0
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
While reviewing some of the parameters in the 1419.inc file, I noticed there are some "weird" setups that do not make sense.

Listed below are my recommendations which I will submit in a fortnight unless there are issues from other players.

changes are coloured

alliance = {
id = { type = 6000 id = 14 }
type = vassalization
expirydate = { year = 1490 month = january day = 2 }
participant = { CAS GRA }
}

original was to close to the DOW year

-----------------------------------------------
alliance = {
id = { type = 6000 id = 24 }
type = vassalization
expirydate = { year = 1456 month = december day = 29 }
participant = { TUR ATH }
}

Athens fell to the OE 1456

-----------------------------------------------

alliance = {
id = { type = 6000 id = 31 }
type = vassalization
expirydate = { year = 1440 month = december day = 25 }
participant = { TUR BYZ }
}

this needed to finish at least 10 years before BYZ fell

----------------------------------------------------

alliance = {
id = { type = 6000 id = 53 }
type = vassalization
expirydate = { year = 1490 month = december day = 25 }
participant = { FRA BRI }
}

if marys wedding was to fail then war would have ensured by 1492

------------------------------------------------------------

alliance = {
id = { type = 9423 id = 25 }
type = militaryalliance
expirydate = { year = 1444 month = december day = 31 }
participant = { BYZ SPR }
}

alliance split after morea attack athens in 1444

-------------------------------------------------------------
 
can someone give me an explanation on the following:

When comparing manpower, please remember the manpower equation:
#
# manpower = pCon * ((mBase + mEvent)* pPop) + mCul) + mCon + mNat
#
# Where: mBase is the base manpower, the value listed in this file
# mEvent is the value of modifications from events, additive
# pPop is a multiplier dependant on population size
# mCul is a modifier based on culture
# pCon and mCon are two modifiers for a conscription center
# mNat is a modifier for nationalism
#
# The result is rounded to zero if less than zero, which typically
# occurs for low manpower provinces of a wrong culture.
#
# Population pPop
# -----------------------
# 0- 699 0.00
# 700- 20000 0.25
# 20001-200000 0.50
# 200001-999999 0.75
#
#
# Culture mCul
# ----------------------
# State culture 0.0
# Non-state culture -2.0
#
#
# Conscription C. pCon mCon
# ---------------------------- /
# Present 3.0 1.0 EU2 v.1.05
# Not present 1.0 0.0 \
#
# Conscription C. pCon mCon
# ---------------------------- /
# Present 2.0 1.0 EU2 v.1.06
# Not present 1.0 0.0 \
#
#
# Nationalism mNat
# ----------------------
# No nationalism 0.0
# 0-10 years left 0.0
# 10-20 years left 0.0
# 20-30 years left -1.0
#
 
Toio said:
While reviewing some of the parameters in the 1419.inc file, I noticed there are some "weird" setups that do not make sense.

Listed below are my recommendations which I will submit in a fortnight unless there are issues from other players.

changes are coloured

alliance = {
id = { type = 6000 id = 14 }
type = vassalization
expirydate = { year = 1490 month = january day = 2 }
participant = { CAS GRA }
}

original was to close to the DOW year
Click to expand...
Vassalization was broken by Granada in 1478 historically. Shouldn't last longer than that and there is an event in 1478 also that brakes it with a choice b for keeping it. Similar situation in TUR-BYZ, events take care of that. No need to fix what is working.
 
Fodoron said:
Vassalization was broken by Granada in 1478 historically. Shouldn't last longer than that and there is an event in 1478 also that brakes it with a choice b for keeping it. Similar situation in TUR-BYZ, events take care of that. No need to fix what is working.
Click to expand...

good, change it to 1478 then and not the original of 1492


why have a un-historical year when we do not need it, better safe than sorry.

your risking , "if events fire" , theory. Does not seem good enough. we need to clean up these loose ends.
 
Jinnai said:
As long as there is an event to attempt to revassalize them shortly thereafter.
Click to expand...

I think it'd be better just to keep the vassalizations the way now or perhaps change the dates so that they last until cancelled. Its rather gamey to have them end on the dates that we want the states to be annexed.
 
Garbon said:
I think it'd be better just to keep the vassalizations the way now or perhaps change the dates so that they last until cancelled. Its rather gamey to have them end on the dates that we want the states to be annexed.
Click to expand...
Too many problems arise if they annex them too soon. It wouldn't be so bad if Granada was 3+ provinces or if Castile wouldn't ally with anyone.
 
BRI was not a vassal of FRA at gamestart. They acted as an independent state. Louis XI attempted to impress his feudal rights on Duke Francois II, but failed. It took Francois II to die without a male heir to crack Brittany (similar with BUR). If BRI begins the game as a vassal of FRA (I can't recall yea or ney), then it would have been implemented simply in order to provide some temporary stability to the region's diplomatic field. The HYW setup bends some definitions here and there just a tad, but merely in a transient fashion, for gameplay purposes. Hence the HYW setup shouldn't be messed with too much -- save that brilliant observation posted in a while back regarding 1419.inc changes that would effectively tie Aragon up from allying themselves to ENG or Dauphin!!!
 
ribbon22 said:
BRI was not a vassal of FRA at gamestart. They acted as an independent state. Louis XI attempted to impress his feudal rights on Duke Francois II, but failed. It took Francois II to die without a male heir to crack Brittany (similar with BUR). If BRI begins the game as a vassal of FRA (I can't recall yea or ney), then it would have been implemented simply in order to provide some temporary stability to the region's diplomatic field. The HYW setup bends some definitions here and there just a tad, but merely in a transient fashion, for gameplay purposes. Hence the HYW setup shouldn't be messed with too much -- save that brilliant observation posted in a while back regarding 1419.inc changes that would effectively tie Aragon up from allying themselves to ENG or Dauphin!!!
Click to expand...

I thought the vassalation was put in to prevent BRI siding with ENG against FRA.

and also stopping ENG from annexing BRI at a later date.
 
anyone know what this means from post 2, this thread

Culture mCul
# ----------------------
# State culture 0.0
# Non-state culture -2.0
 
Toio said:
anyone know what this means from post 2, this thread

Culture mCul
# ----------------------
# State culture 0.0
# Non-state culture -2.0
Click to expand...
Yes, it's data of Peter Ebbesen's manpower mod. Don't change anything about that.

Regarding the vassalisations: the events that give a choice on whether to cancel the vassalisation or not hardly make sense and become unbalanced if the vassalisation ends anyway. I don't see what is "risky" about an "if events fire" theory. Those events will fire if the liege and the vassal exist, and if either of the two doesn't, there is no vassalisation anymore anyway.

And btw, making Athens a vassal of the Ottomans is not yet and approved change afaik, so don't discuss it here. I'm opposed to it for reasons that were explained to you several times already. Just because Norwich states something it doesn't have to be correct. You have been pointed to the discussion between MKJ and Demetrios that was the base for making Athens a vassal of Venice already, I trust you have read it. The thread is untraceable right now unfortunately.
 
Code: 
alliance = { 
        id = { type = 9423 id = 33 } 
        type = militaryalliance 
        expirydate = { year = 1440 month = january day = 1 } 
        participant = { HUN SER }
    }
I think Hungary second alliance should change for EU2 1.09
Serbia easily give up and left war betwen Otto alliance with Hungary if Otto attacking SER. That make Otto invade HUN to early. Maybe should replace with these
Code: 
alliance = { 
        id = { type = 9423 id = 33 } 
        type = militaryalliance 
        expirydate = { year = 1440 month = january day = 1 } 
        participant = { SER HUN }
    }
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back