1696 Campaign for AGCEEP

[unmerged(41177)]

Hi all I just wanted to let you all know that I am working on a 1696 for AGCEEP. If anyone is interested I'll keep you updated here...I have most of things figured out, basically it's just copied from the 1700 campaign in original Eu2

I need to know which user-defined countries are in the year 1696 and how you can help me out with that.

I'd be glad if the AGCEEP team would accept my work into their work when the time comes and I am finished.

Cheers!! - SirWellington

 

[Twoflower]

Just interested: What's the reason for picking 1696 over, say, 1701 (the beginning of the War of Spanish Succession) or 1689 (when the Grand Alliance in the War of Palatine Succession had formed and the Glorious Revolution had just put William of Orange on the English throne)?
1696 seems a rather problematic choice to me especially considering that this was the last year of the War of Palatine Succession, i.e. it would have to start with a huge war that is almost over.
Thad said, I think it would be great to have a scenario starting in that period of time that would allow to see Fodoron's work on the War of Spanish Succession in action in a historical environment instead of the ahistorical environment that is usually created by 280, 180 or even just 50 years of gameplay up to then.

 

[unmerged(41177)]

Just interested: What's the reason for picking 1696 over, say, 1701 (the beginning of the War of Spanish Succession) or 1689 (when the Grand Alliance in the War of Palatine Succession had formed and the Glorious Revolution had just put William of Orange on the English throne)?
1696 seems a rather problematic choice to me especially considering that this was the last year of the War of Palatine Succession, i.e. it would have to start with a huge war that is almost over.
That said, I think it would be great to have a scenario starting in that period of time that would allow to see Fodoron's work on the War of Spanish Succession in action in a historical environment instead of the ahistorical environment that is usually created by 280, 180 or even just 50 years of gameplay up to then.

The reason to pick 1696 is quite interesting, I was a bit puzzled myself when I first picked it, but I realised it as the death of Prince Joseph Ferdinand of Bavaria, and thus the Partition treaties had to be revised. However if you would wish, I could easily change the starting date to 1699 so as to reflect a year of peace before the war.

 

[unmerged(41177)]

Also, I'd like to know which User-Defined countries you would wish me to put in the time period (I've begun it at 1700 instead of 1696). Any help on that would be much appreciated

Cheers - SirWellington

P.S. - Look forward to this campaign being finished by next week if all goes well

 

[Jayavarman]

The AGC-EEP 1648 scenario would be a good base to begin you modding.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

The AGC-EEP 1648 scenario would be a good base to begin you modding.

1648 scenario is far from perfect actually...
See Scenarios consistency thread. Next version will be better, maybe not perfect, but a lot of imprecisions will be corrected...

 

[Jayavarman]

1648 scenario is far from perfect actually...
See Scenarios consistency thread. Next version will be better, maybe not perfect, but a lot of imprecisions will be corrected...

Oh cool. I did not realize that AGCEEP was working heavily on the other scenarios.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Oh cool. I did not realize that AGCEEP was working heavily on the other scenarios.

I always work heavily.

 

[unmerged(29318)]

I always work heavily.

Great to hear that
. waiting years for 1520s become playable, before modified it myself to make it work. since you now are HC members situation was change..

 

[Garbon]

waiting years for 1520s become playable, before modified it myself to make it work. since you now are HC members situation was change..

Of course people are always free to mention suggestions on how to make things better.

As an aside, the rolleyes smiley is in almost all contexts sort of rude and I've always been rather confused as to why Paradox added it.

 

[Jayavarman]

Of course people are always free to mention suggestions on how to make things better.

As an aside, the rolleyes smiley is in almost all contexts sort of rude and I've always been rather confused as to why Paradox added it.

I give him the benefit of a doubt because he is not a native English speaker, relatively new to the forums, enthusiastic, and enjoys various emoticons.

The controversy over rolleyes smilie has raged for a long time. Do not forget that the current version is not the original, which is banned from usage.

 

[Garbon]

I give him the benefit of a doubt because he is not a native English speaker, relatively new to the forums, enthusiastic, and enjoys various emoticons.

The controversy over rolleyes smilie has raged for a long time. Do not forget that the current version is not the original, which is banned from usage.

Oh indeed, I actually just wanted to point it out, as one will never know that its rude if one isn't told.

 

[unmerged(12680)]

I always thought the "new" yellow smilies were a poor match for the "old guard" of grey smilies:



In any case I just find it annoying that whoever made the large, yellow smilies couldn't be bother to learn how work with anti-alias, leading to those fugly grey border-bits, making the smiley almost quadratical in shape. Sloppy handiwork!

Anyway, you were discussing...?

 

[unmerged(29318)]

Oh indeed, I actually just wanted to point it out, as one will never know that its rude if one isn't told.

thank you to tell me about that.