Mad King James said:
Was this division relevant/significant for a good portion of the game period? (Not a pointed question, as I have no idea)
-
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.
Was this division relevant/significant for a good portion of the game period? (Not a pointed question, as I have no idea)
It was the richest part for some time, but after the desolation in the conquest by OE it got very poor. Tax value 3 (both vanilla and AGCEEP) reflects that well. Including a province just because we have a free ID doesn't sit well with me. Giving OE lots of poor Greek Christian provinces worries me a great deal. Also, Morea will take two wars for OE to conquer.Mad King James said:
As pointed out in my list in post 31, it was divided until 1432. Then the principats merged and eventually came under Ottoman rule as a whole. Venice held some cities on the coasts for longer IIRC, but that's very minor and shouldn't give them half the island, so the division isn't used for that.Garbon said:
Last edited:
![Sute]{h](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/styles/paradox/owneditems/avatars/Stellaris_pre_order/s/stellaris_avatars_fungoid_12_special.png){kind=avatar}
This has already happened in the regional threads and then in MKJ's map thread. I don't think repeating all the arguments for every province is time well spent. If people want to know why a given province is on the map use the search function.G-Klav said:
I think the most reasonable way to do this is to test the map in EU2. Let's try it out and see which provinces work as intended and which doesn't. Otherwise every argument is based on speculation instead of facts.
OK.Toio said:
Unless I belive a new map will mean an overall improvement I find it hard to put down time adopting for it. I still prefer to play on the old map. Of course, if others want to adapt AGCEEP to the current map I think they should go ahead!Sute]{h said:
Norrefeldt said:
Yea, I wasn't sure if there was anything beyond that. Otherwise, it seems to me that the division is a bad idea, especially considering how poor the vanilla Morea province is.
About new map aesthetism, I have actually a discussion in the french devoted AGCEEP's map thread about a poll to see which design could be awaited. Options could be scaled from "same as MyMap" to "same as original EUII" with a number a five choices.
This poll needs visual samples (juste a little but significative and not the whole map) in order to help make a decision.
Btw, a "nice" map could brought us more players (even if it is not a goal in itself) as I see how people react to MyMap.
What do you think of this idea?
This poll needs visual samples (juste a little but significative and not the whole map) in order to help make a decision.
Btw, a "nice" map could brought us more players (even if it is not a goal in itself) as I see how people react to MyMap.
What do you think of this idea?
What is the rationale behind Morea being quite so poor? The Byzantines brought in a LOT more money from Morea than they did from the area around Constantinople, which is being proposed as tax 10.
I agree - it's too poor. As well as several Venetian islands in the Mediterranean, which make the struggle with the Turks for them quite senseless really.Mad King James said:
Anyone have any complaints about the shoreline borders of England and Scotland on the map below? -- eh, I mean besides the effort needed to create these changes! I'm not too happy about how Scotland is exagerated in the current map. So, this is an old proposal, with changes to Scotland including internal borders. Ignore England's internal borders. If we want aesthetics we'll have to figure out some new internal borders for England (i.e. round out the current ones). Also, Gloucestershire and the marches should be seperated, for whatever reason they've been merged.
I think Toio has read a lot on Morea, it's wealth was discussed for an event a few weeks ago. It should perhaps start slightly richer, and then get poorer (to current level) by event as the OE take it. The current value might reflect the economical value from after conquest.
ribbon22 said:
I agree with your comments on seperating the Marches and Gloucestershire, Ribbon. I think the only issue is the ID Grid - there were more deserving provinces than Salop, however including it does offer some attractive event-scripting/gameplay opportunities...
I seem to remember we had gone for the current layout in Scotland to create a buffer zone in Berwick to prevent English armies accessing all Scottish provinces in two moves. I guess that with the introduction of an Orkney province this is no longer such an issue and we could look again at the Scottish province boundaries. Having Lothian province stretch down to the border and incorporating Berwick province within it seems acceptable, as we could easily simulate Berwick changing hands with an increase/decrease in province incomes for Lothian/Northumbria. It also seems sensible to split Ayr and Argyll again. A large combined Aberdeen/Fife province isn't ideal but then again if it frees up an ID for Salop then all the better.
If anyone is able to redraw Scotland a little smaller now we've enlarged the provinces within it then it couldn't hurt. Improving the look of the province borders would be more important though.
Well, like the problem that still exists with Portugal, the movement of troops through territories in FoW would still be a concern. That is FE still possible with Portugal that movement of armies are still visable to Castile/Spain easily.muttoneer said:
True, there is at startup province that are in FoW, but if they want to move any armies around for strategic reasons, Spain/Castile, their major rival, will know.
The actually territory that switched hands between Engalnd and Scotland was insignificant compared to a EU2 province. That's what irked me about having a Berwick province that was so big: if we were trying to simulate a province that could literally change hands b/w ENG and SCO, then the Berwick province was way too big. I agree with you 100% thatany exchange regarding Berwick should be represented via provincetax increases or decreases. Berwick doesn't need to exist as a province.[/QUOTE]muttoneer said:
YodaMaster said:
I finally loaded up MyMap for myself, and I found this quite disturbing.
Did you play on new map?muttoneer said:
It is like Orkneys are taken very easily in my games first of all by the naval countries (England, Spain, Portugal, France etc) as Scotland has no navy to protect it and did not maintain any army here almost; while Berwick makes a lot of more sense with AI fights really. I would better agree to unite Fife and Lothian than to lose Berwick.
I meant to ask you what you thought of Rajahmundry and Kondavidu on MyMap - plus the location of Vijayanagar. Was it really that far south? Poor Bahmanids! Plus, that one new province next to Kutch is annoyingly small.Garbon said:
I also thought the provinces for Orissa should have been thinner, more coast-hugging than they were, but that's really not a gameplay concern.
Herr Doctor said:Did you play on new map?
Only once so far, and it was pretty easily taken because I did the taking...
Maybe it would benefit from land access to the mainland?
dharper said:
I was the one who placed Rajamundry and Kondavidu on the map. There should be a river around there, and Kondavidu would be at the top of the province. I couldn't find any names that would fit for the rest of the province (the lower half) so I just lumped it together.
dharper said:
I'm guessing you mean Diu? I'm not sure if that province is necessary, and I'm pretty sure that Tranquebar is not.
dharper said:
They are thinner than they were initially