2 fundamental historic flaws in EU

[unmerged(598)]

The problem I have with tweaks, and these fixes is that while they might artificially make the game appear more 'historic,' to do so by a system handicapping a nation because it doesn't do what it should is just wrong. Why could Palatine, or Bohemia not have changed from a minor to a major in the same way that Brandenburg-Prussia did?

Many of the strange occurences, such as Savoie and Lorraine growing to 10 provinces has little to do with their technology, and all to do with the war the AI handles warfare: The larger nations are not able to use their resources in a manner which enforces a decisive war, and thus the outcome of AI V AI war comes down to who has the better leader, or who can finish off three sieges first.

IMHO there are 4 major problems with the warfare AI:

1. Attrition
2. Not crushing enemy siege forces
3. Sieging provinces without cannon
4. Nations with provinces seperated by water are innefective in war.

The combination of these means that the AI must expend vast sums of money in a war that may achieve nothing, thus destroying their economy, slowing research, and allowing small, more peacefull nations to take leaps in the technology race. France for example has a high warmonger value in france.ai meaning that they will be at war almost constantly, as the chances of France actually winning any of those wars is remote. By 1700, France is usually still using pikemen, and starts losing provinces to nations such as Cologne.

The performance of England in the campaign game is directly attributable to these problems. I have made changes to give Calais to France, remove Scotland's CB from Ireland and increase their starting tech level, and while England is rarely a patchwork of different nations, they can still not win a war as late as 1750. In several games England has had the largest navy and army, as well as a colonial empire, yet cedes provinces to Sweden and Algiers.

I still think that the AI in this game may be one of the best I've seen, however there are issues which need to be addressed, either in a patch or a new release which will solve nearly all the other problems in the game.

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by sean9898


The combination of these means that the AI must expend vast sums of money in a war that may achieve nothing, thus destroying their economy, slowing research, and allowing small, more peacefull nations to take leaps in the technology race. France for example has a high warmonger value in france.ai meaning that they will be at war almost constantly, as the chances of France actually winning any of those wars is remote. By 1700, France is usually still using pikemen, and starts losing provinces to nations such as Cologne.

The performance of England in the campaign game is directly attributable to these problems. I have made changes to give Calais to France, remove Scotland's CB from Ireland and increase their starting tech level, and while England is rarely a patchwork of different nations, they can still not win a war as late as 1750. In several games England has had the largest navy and army, as well as a colonial empire, yet cedes provinces to Sweden and Algiers.

In my current EU settings, all European countrieshave reached land level 12 between 1590 and 1630.

About England, you don't mentionned the real problem: size of the country and tech progression. With his quick grpwth of a huge colonial empire, England is always slower in tech progression, contrary to Sweden and Algiers. nothing to do with AI; in my sttings, England wins war after 1600.

 

[unmerged(1744)]

laurent Favre:

You are really grabbing my interest with yor reports of how it is playing! I'd like to see some results in the game closer to what you are getting in yours.

One other issue which I want to spring: Forts in the later game. If armies are smaller and people have a hard time raising large armies, wont the late game Forts be invincible? They are hard enough to crack NOW with the ridiculously sized armies that roll around in the standard IGC. I can only think that they will be impossible to take down when the armies are smaller. If the cost of the forts could be raised to compensate, I think I'd give it a shot. As it is, I'm not convinced it wont stagnate.

Also, I'd imagine that Navies REALLY take a back seat when cash is low. I know that I have a hard enough time affording them now and with less cash, they would prolly go the way of the dinosaur. I just cant see justifying a larger percentage of income on the already under-useful Fleets.

Have you managed to test your mod into the late game with the massive fortifications yet? I'd be curious to know how it works out. Please post your results if you've reached that stage yet. Your web page only lists until the 1600's or so.

Also, is your mod trying to attack both problems (higher minor techs and overly large sized armies) as separate issues or together? Personally, I view the tech problem as far worse than the army size problem. If all nations have armies that are too large, I can rationalize the extras as 'rear area' ash and trash, supply troops and general support for the army. IMO, the army size doesnt necessarily have to represent combat effectives. Its far more difficult to rationalize Tunisian Armies routing Spanish/Austrian/French armies in open battle with equal numbers on a consistant basis.

What I am driving at is this: Which changes could I make that could help alleviate the tech issue while leaving as much as the rest as intact as possible. I dont mind allowing for some ahistorical progress in the game on the strategic level...ie Minors colonizing if presented the opportunity or minors developing into larger powers etc.

Thanx for your time and effort on these issues!

Talenn

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by Talenn
laurent Favre:

You are really grabbing my interest with yor reports of how it is playing! I'd like to see some results in the game closer to what you are getting in yours.

One other issue which I want to spring: Forts in the later game. If armies are smaller and people have a hard time raising large armies, wont the late game Forts be invincible? They are hard enough to crack NOW with the ridiculously sized armies that roll around in the standard IGC. I can only think that they will be impossible to take down when the armies are smaller. If the cost of the forts could be raised to compensate, I think I'd give it a shot. As it is, I'm not convinced it wont stagnate.

Also, I'd imagine that Navies REALLY take a back seat when cash is low. I know that I have a hard enough time affording them now and with less cash, they would prolly go the way of the dinosaur. I just cant see justifying a larger percentage of income on the already under-useful Fleets.

Have you managed to test your mod into the late game with the massive fortifications yet? I'd be curious to know how it works out. Please post your results if you've reached that stage yet. Your web page only lists until the 1600's or so.

Also, is your mod trying to attack both problems (higher minor techs and overly large sized armies) as separate issues or together? Personally, I view the tech problem as far worse than the army size problem. If all nations have armies that are too large, I can rationalize the extras as 'rear area' ash and trash, supply troops and general support for the army. IMO, the army size doesnt necessarily have to represent combat effectives. Its far more difficult to rationalize Tunisian Armies routing Spanish/Austrian/French armies in open battle with equal numbers on a consistant basis.

What I am driving at is this: Which changes could I make that could help alleviate the tech issue while leaving as much as the rest as intact as possible. I dont mind allowing for some ahistorical progress in the game on the strategic level...ie Minors colonizing if presented the opportunity or minors developing into larger powers etc.

Thanx for your time and effort on these issues!

Talenn

AI builds large number of 'weapon manufactures' and recruitment centers after the necessary tech level is reached. So after 1650, armies of more than 100.000 men begins to appear... Once agin, the AI surprisingly sustends the shock.

About navies: the AI colonizes, transports armies in colonies as usual. The size of fleets is reduced, which has the advantage of hindering debarkment of 150.000 turks in Ireland ; ). In the current pure AI game I run with Real EU 4.0, both Spain and Turks have fight during 30years in Sicily...So AI is yat able to have fleets.

I will not separate the 2 issues. I begun by reducing money because in my sense it's the fundamental flaw of EU: too much money for the player, who can conquer the world, too much for the AI which doesn't know how yo use it efficiently. And side effects I mentionned: 'Normandy 1944' invasions, too large armies permitting to assault any fortress and so on.

I stopped all precedent game around 1700 because of problems. in this one, I hope to go until 1792 BTW, the game is currently rather different of the reality: because of their protracted war, Spain and Turkey didn't conquered Mameluks and Aztechs, so French and Austrian AI are performing better than in reality, even if Spain has built a nice colonial empire. England is yet suffering ( 2 provinces lost) but the London COT has been created early, colonial expansion is beginning, so the future should be brighter.

 

[unmerged(1744)]

laurent Favre:

Yep, multiple occurances of a 17th Century 'D-Day' are definately a wee bit silly!

Ok, I think I'm going to give it a whirl and see how it plays. Two questions before I start:

1) Does EU support having multiple instances on the same hard drive...ie can I install an additional copy in a different directory name and make the changes there without affecting the main EU directory? Does anyone have multiple functioning installs of the game yet?

2) Any recommendations for which nations to try/avoid? I have played 2 IGCs as England and tried a few with Sweden. I havent yet been able to master Sweden though. I think my current one is going fairly well, but I am so far behind in the 'tech race' with countries like Denmark, Hansa, and the little German provinces that its quickly becoming difficult to make any progress on the battlefield. I dont like the feel of having to outnumber these little armies by 4 and 5 to one in order win.

Thanx,
Talenn

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by Talenn
laurent Favre:

Yep, multiple occurances of a 17th Century 'D-Day' are definately a wee bit silly!

Ok, I think I'm going to give it a whirl and see how it plays. Two questions before I start:

1) Does EU support having multiple instances on the same hard drive...ie can I install an additional copy in a different directory name and make the changes there without affecting the main EU directory? Does anyone have multiple functioning installs of the game yet?

2) Any recommendations for which nations to try/avoid? I have played 2 IGCs as England and tried a few with Sweden. I havent yet been able to master Sweden though. I think my current one is going fairly well, but I am so far behind in the 'tech race' with countries like Denmark, Hansa, and the little German provinces that its quickly becoming difficult to make any progress on the battlefield. I dont like the feel of having to outnumber these little armies by 4 and 5 to one in order win.

Thanx,
Talenn

I should adice you to wait the version 4.0. I shuld release it this week-end.

1) yes. No problem.

you should try Sweden. I didn't played with Sweden so it would be interesting. I think both the beginning should be harder ( lack of money) and the end easier for an human player (tech race winnable)

 

[unmerged(548)]

I shuld release it this week-end.

If you send me some readme files etc I'll put up a beta webpage for you to take a look at =)

you should try Sweden. I didn't played with Sweden so it would be interesting. I think both the beginning should be harder ( lack of money)

No kidding, starting out as a vassal, -2 stab and a LOT of almost worthless provinces (increasing stab improvemnt cost but low money return). =)

 

[unmerged(1641)]

Some testresult for the fun :

The game work's 'better' if CB shield's only are used on the starting provinces for each contry (no CBS on other's provinces): The AI playe's much more balanced and with event's for CB's, trade embargo and standard 'rules' for them It just work great, not an 'static or unrealistic' game as I was afried for when I started the testing's (fun to play to). This can be used without any other changes on other setting's.
Not:
England AI playes nearly as perfect as an AI can do in this game and even Russia preform's pretty good.

I'm using a mix of the IGC (great camp) with some minor changes in the scenario setting, some of lF's from his real EU 3.0 and my own setting's for good's,trade,infra,taxes and some changes for the movement penalty point's.
I will continue with the testing's so I get the balace more correct comparing to the timeline but as it look's, only some smaller changes needs to be done.

Have only test this as Sweden (most used with that) so I can compare the test's and Sweden is pretty hard to play with this setting's : No money so I mostly have to fight with only Inf...no CB's on Denmark (temporary until 1521) or Russia and much more.

If anyone like to discuss or have some suggestion about getting evrything as good as possible, just email me.

 

[unmerged(604)]

Favre,
Just a quick note about my IGC with RealEU3. Im playing Austria and have gotten to early 17th century and I think you are really on the right track. There is much give and take amoung the AI nations and no tech anomolies seen yet. Russia started strong and then got slapped down. Poland got slapped down early and now is resurgent. France has had a disaster with Brittany declaring independence, a civil war with the south of france becoming a Protestant nation and general civil chaos. I love it. When the Real EU4 is out will it require a clean load with the game or will it smothly overwrite the old version. Its starting to get a little messy with having to look for three different updates with the different versions out there but I think it is getting close to the pristine end. Again, great work with the RealEU tweaks.

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by First Surprise
Some testresult for the fun :

The game work's 'better' if CB shield's only are used on the starting provinces for each contry (no CBS on other's provinces): The AI playe's much more balanced and with event's for CB's, trade embargo and standard 'rules' for them It just work great, not an 'static or unrealistic' game as I was afried for when I started the testing's (fun to play to). This can be used without any other changes on other setting's.
Not:
England AI playes nearly as perfect as an AI can do in this game and even Russia preform's pretty good.

I'm using a mix of the IGC (great camp) with some minor changes in the scenario setting, some of lF's from his real EU 3.0 and my own setting's for good's,trade,infra,taxes and some changes for the movement penalty point's.
I will continue with the testing's so I get the balace more correct comparing to the timeline but as it look's, only some smaller changes needs to be done.

Have only test this as Sweden (most used with that) so I can compare the test's and Sweden is pretty hard to play with this setting's : No money so I mostly have to fight with only Inf...no CB's on Denmark (temporary until 1521) or Russia and much more.

If anyone like to discuss or have some suggestion about getting evrything as good as possible, just email me.

Be careful: problems generally arises after 1650

 

[unmerged(1641)]

To lF

Be careful: problems generally arises after 1650
-----------------------

K, will look carefully and report if it doesn't work.
The AI don't have any problem with Netherlands revolt what I have seen if u mean some CBS conflict's.
Only I can see so fare is that the AI is more carefully and don't starts so many meanless war's, but when it starts then It's war for sure.

If u have time do an quick test and see how good England start's up the scenario, worth the work only to see that.

 

[Guest]

Re: To lF

Originally posted by First Surprise
Be careful: problems generally arises after 1650
-----------------------

K, will look carefully and report if it doesn't work.
The AI don't have any problem with Netherlands revolt what I have seen if u mean some CBS conflict's.
Only I can see so fare is that the AI is more carefully and don't starts so many meanless war's, but when it starts then It's war for sure.

If u have time do an quick test and see how good England start's up the scenario, worth the work only to see that.

there's a curiosity with Holland in EU: as it appears as revolter, netherlands doesn't get any shield, ie no national provinces. It's certainly one reason explaining both revolts in netherlands after independance and the relative weakness of Holland after independance, as netherlands AI doesn't care about the loss of some provinces...

I don't believe removing CB shield to be good both interm of historicity and gameplay: historicity because revolts will be more numerous in some provinces without realism reasons ( thinking of Russia or France Lorraine. Then the loss of most CB is putting in the same bag wars against anyone and against your natural opponent... calais wothout CB...strange and in such case why attck it as France rather than looking at a more rich English province?

 

[unmerged(1641)]

1.there's a curiosity with Holland in EU: as it appears as revolter, netherlands doesn't get any shield, ie no national provinces. It's certainly one reason explaining both revolts in netherlands after independance and the relative weakness of Holland after independance, as netherlands AI doesn't care about the loss of some provinces...

2.I don't believe removing CB shield to be good both interm of historicity and gameplay: historicity because revolts will be more numerous in some provinces without realism reasons ( thinking of Russia or France Lorraine. Then the loss of most CB is putting in the same bag wars against anyone and against your natural opponent... calais wothout CB...strange and in such case why attck it as France rather than looking at a more rich English province?
--------------------------------------------
1. Not sure if both Spain and Holland have CBS on same provinces, whatever It work's and dont crash. Holland does a good work but they are week and get's fast in trouble.

2. Haven't seen any revolt in Russia yet, but they have alwayes diplomtic annexed Pskov and Ryazan (Astrakan and Golden Horde in war) in all testscenarios. About France they are soon in war with Spain with CB on eachother, depending on alliance war's and trade embargos. Scottland have always attacked England but not direct and always as an part of an alliance what I have seen.
Calaise is a little random, sometimes it's not attacked by France (depends also how the alliances look, but this can easy be fixed 'historical' with an temporary CB vs. England in the setup, will try it in next test). What I also have seen is that the AI haven't any bigger problem's with revolt's but this is maybe an result of other setting's, not sure.

Hard to explain evrything, but It's not to unhistorical (many Countries grove the same way as they do with CBS on eachother's provinces anyway) and I like a little of 'what can have happen if not...' with new alliances evry time I play. One more is, what's the point with CBS so u always know what the AI will come fore and the 'cheat' tactic to leave one province left with CBS so u can take the rest without to take any stability loss for declaring war ?

It's more tactic to wait for an CB (can always wait for an random even or trade embargo), take part on right alliance or declare war and lose at least -2 in stability (look's like the AI don't acceppt peace so easy if u don't have +3 in stability, not sure maybe my BB value..hehe). Not sure either if the AI plays 'smarter' or if it's just harder to play as human when I can't use the 'save an CBS cheat tactic'.

But this is not ready tested yet and to 'improve' the AI some event's (and temporary CB perhaps)need's to be included so at least some sort of '30-year's war' will start.

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by First Surprise
1.there's a curiosity with Holland in EU: as it appears as revolter, netherlands doesn't get any shield, ie no national provinces. It's certainly one reason explaining both revolts in netherlands after independance and the relative weakness of Holland after independance, as netherlands AI doesn't care about the loss of some provinces...

2.I don't believe removing CB shield to be good both interm of historicity and gameplay: historicity because revolts will be more numerous in some provinces without realism reasons ( thinking of Russia or France Lorraine. Then the loss of most CB is putting in the same bag wars against anyone and against your natural opponent... calais wothout CB...strange and in such case why attck it as France rather than looking at a more rich English province?
--------------------------------------------
1. Not sure if both Spain and Holland have CBS on same provinces, whatever It work's and dont crash. Holland does a good work but they are week and get's fast in trouble.

2. Haven't seen any revolt in Russia yet, but they have alwayes diplomtic annexed Pskov and Ryazan (Astrakan and Golden Horde in war) in all testscenarios. About France they are soon in war with Spain with CB on eachother, depending on alliance war's and trade embargos. Scottland have always attacked England but not direct and always as an part of an alliance what I have seen.
Calaise is a little random, sometimes it's not attacked by France (depends also how the alliances look, but this can easy be fixed 'historical' with an temporary CB vs. England in the setup, will try it in next test). What I also have seen is that the AI haven't any bigger problem's with revolt's but this is maybe an result of other setting's, not sure.

Hard to explain evrything, but It's not to unhistorical (many Countries grove the same way as they do with CBS on eachother's provinces anyway) and I like a little of 'what can have happen if not...' with new alliances evry time I play. One more is, what's the point with CBS so u always know what the AI will come fore and the 'cheat' tactic to leave one province left with CBS so u can take the rest without to take any stability loss for declaring war ?

It's more tactic to wait for an CB (can always wait for an random even or trade embargo), take part on right alliance or declare war and lose at least -2 in stability (look's like the AI don't acceppt peace so easy if u don't have +3 in stability, not sure maybe my BB value..hehe). Not sure either if the AI plays 'smarter' or if it's just harder to play as human when I can't use the 'save an CBS cheat tactic'.

But this is not ready tested yet and to 'improve' the AI some event's (and temporary CB perhaps)need's to be included so at least some sort of '30-year's war' will start.

My goal being to produce a more historical game, CB are unavoidable. The so called cheat tactic about CB is just a sort of 'good pretext' policy, no it's not so current to get one moreover so the benefits of removing of shields aren't worth the inconvenients to have totally random policies for any player. There were wars which seemed normal hence the CB shield stuff.

 

[unmerged(1641)]

My goal being to produce a more historical game, CB are unavoidable. The so called cheat tactic about CB is just a sort of 'good pretext' policy, no it's not so current to get one moreover so the benefits of removing of shields aren't worth the inconvenients to have totally random policies for any player. There were wars which seemed normal hence the CB shield stuff.
-----------------------------------

K, Im not meaning that's wrong or so with CBS as it is and I like both way of use for them (I have them offcourse on the 'start' provinces on each Country) and both way's have good and bad thing's.

The point is that the AI can handle it, and that made me very immpressed of the great work Paradox have done.
That's why I once wrote that 'Paradox dosn't know how good the AI is', just give it a little 'freedom' it can handle many different strategies very good. In my opinion one of the best AI I ever seen in an strategy game, not perfect yet but I think the 'smaller' tactical problems we all know about will soon be fixed in an patch.

And as I erlier said, the AI behaives pretty historical correct even without the CBS on enemy provinces, sound's strange maybe and I was surprise but it works.

My goal is also to have an more 'historical' game, if it starts to be a 'political mess' then the 'no' CBS testing's are over for sure. Im just testing to see if it can be done in an differant way to make it harder to play when CB will be more important and harder to get vs 'eachother'.

Ex. An 'historical' example is that one of the reason's why Sweden and Denmark was enymies was that we took Skåne, in the setup I use Skåne has an Denmark CBS not Swedish.
.............
Fun to 'talk' with u lF and I have got many good hint's from the great work u have done in Real EU and many thx's to the bud's behind IGC.

 

[unmerged(1798)]

Originally posted by Talenn
joel rauber:

No, of course the 'minors' arent taking over the majors..they havent the Econ for that. But IMO, the FEEL is wrong when the armies of France or Spain cant defeat the armies of Savoy or Pommerania without 10 to 1 odds. Also, when Tunisia comes and lands in Brittany and the French cant counter attack for fear of being mopped up by the technologically superior Arabs, I'd say we have a major realism issue here. You dont agree?

For the record I'm basically in favor of the tweaking Laurent is doing (all based on description as I haven't tried it yet). All of my comments are based on playing GC as a major V1.08.

On this one issue and this issue alone (I say that because I think what Laurent does is a stone that kills many birds at once and is therefore valueable)

the crucial factor to me is the 'FEEL' as you point out. And all I can say is my experience has been that the feel isn't all that bad in regard to this issue in the games I've played. I have hardly ever, if ever, seen the equivalent of Tunisa landing in Brittany and not being kicked out by the offended major.

And I see France and Spain and Austria, regularly kicking the living daylights out of Savoy, Pomerania, etc etc.

I've only played 5 GC's now and I haven't really observed this sort of thing. I'm not saying it hasn't happened at all, after all i'm concentrating on running my country and not what's going on in minute detail in other parts of the world. But my AI majors, don't seem to be having difficulties with uber minors.

Also, and Laurent has said he is a little bothered by the idea that he has in some essence 'hard-coded' minors into always being minors. That's a little bothersome, as for a plausible what-if history, might be that Bohemia, or Bavaria emulates what Brandenburg-> Prussia did in that three hundred year span and should be possible in the game. Also, I don't think its too much incredulous to see an ahistorically enlightened 'Tunisia' every now and then. Hard coding Monarch values is also bothersome, though I understand what Laurent means, when he says under current constraints it is all he can do for the desired effect.

I imagine there is no reason why a small kingdom can't have equally as good monarchs as large kingdoms, and I assume that the laws of beaurocratic ineria would be that in a small kingdom reforms are more easily implemented.

 

[unmerged(604)]

I believe LFs intent was to tone down the tech advance for the minors so they wouldnt outpace the majors in a unhistorical way and this was done by puting them in a lower tech group and lowering monarch values. It is certainly not a perfect solution, for the reasons you so ably stated and with which I agree, but it seems to be an aceptable compromise as far as I can determine. I could do without hurting the tech and monarch value of the minors because it wasnt a big problem that I could see but I really like the limit put on the availability of new soldiers you can recruit. This I think is Laurent's greatest contribution. Between the basic game, the IGC, and the RealEU its all starting to get a little untidy. I am a firm believer in the basic soundness of the original version in the 1.8 iteration and I greatly approve of the changes made with the IGC ver.1.8. I am waiting for what appears to be the final version of the RealEU ver. 4 and will certainly give it a try. So far I have found that using both the IGC with the RealEU to be a pleasant experiece. So where is that Version 4 Laurent?

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by Arinvald
I believe LFs intent was to tone down the tech advance for the minors so they wouldnt outpace the majors in a unhistorical way and this was done by puting them in a lower tech group and lowering monarch values. It is certainly not a perfect solution, for the reasons you so ably stated and with which I agree, but it seems to be an aceptable compromise as far as I can determine. I could do without hurting the tech and monarch value of the minors because it wasnt a big problem that I could see but I really like the limit put on the availability of new soldiers you can recruit. This I think is Laurent's greatest contribution. Between the basic game, the IGC, and the RealEU its all starting to get a little untidy. I am a firm believer in the basic soundness of the original version in the 1.8 iteration and I greatly approve of the changes made with the IGC ver.1.8. I am waiting for what appears to be the final version of the RealEU ver. 4 and will certainly give it a try. So far I have found that using both the IGC with the RealEU to be a pleasant experiece. So where is that Version 4 Laurent?

Somewhere on my HD It's almost achieved. I've yet to add some monarch events and to test them, write a readme file, zip version 4... tomorrow maybe.

real EU version 4 uses a IGC 1.07c modified by me so it will be rather a whole scenario than an add-on to the IGC 1.8. To give an example, annexion of mameluks by Turkey results generally in 1.8 into a general fight against Turkey from poland, hungary, venice, persia and so on... So I modified the diplomatic matrix to avoid such general coalitions.

About tech minors, flavour and importance, life isn't black and white: if the GC doesn't totally ignore history, Real EU gives to minor a fair chance to achieve something: i've seen Navarra holding Savoy, milano and Helvetia or Georgia annexing Crimea. In real EU it's less frequent but it remains possible. What is less frequent too is Poles colonies in Africa, Algerian holding ground in Eire or genoa colonizing Great lakes.

 

[unmerged(604)]

So let me get this straight. To use RealEU4 I would need to start with a clean basic game, patched to 1.8 of course, and then just add RealEU4 and skip patching with the IGC completely? I like the change you mentioned about Turkey and the Mamelukes. You and Hartmann et al are really putting in some major effort with this game and this is great. Keep up the good work. It is really appreciated.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

laurent-

I've applied your Real EU 3.0 tweaks to ICG 1.08 and haven't seen any problems. Will there be any fundamental conflicts between your next version (4.0) and ICG 1.08? In other words, can I edit 1.08 to include your new modifications to the Diplomatic Matrix (along with all the other changes) or will there be inconsistencies that just won't work.

We have an embarrassment of riches, between your work and Hartmann's. I like both 1.08 and Real EU, and I'd like to be able to combine the two. Will that work?