• 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.
Still about MOS_40010:
almoravid from post #74 said:
Of course, the event in current build doesn't represent the coronation of 1547. It instead represents the definite state of affairs in late Ivan III reign, which was the last time russian principalities fought each other. Novgorod's resistance to the direct rule of the grand duke was broken in 1478. In 1480, he renunced the tatar yoke. In 1485, Tver was finally annexed, and so on. Was this really related to the fall of the Byzantine Empire? It wasn't. The rise of Muscovy to pre-eminence happened before the events on Bosporus, and I'm sure Ivan III would have asserted his rights in Novgorod and stopped paying tribute to the Khans even if the Turks failed to take Nea Roma. It simply was not a condition for the unification.

Which reminds me: the description of the event is wrong. It says: "Historically, following his marriage to Zoe Paleologus in 1472 and throwing off the Mongol yoke in 1480, Ivan III proclaimed himself czar of all Russians shortly thereafter." He hadn't "proclaimed himself czar". He styled himself tsar in letters to foreign dignitaries. We shouldn't teach people wrong history. :)
Yes, the description should be changed and that "proclaimed himself czar of all Russians shortly thereafter" should be re-written in some other way.

Why not using following instead?

"proclaimed himself ruler of all Russian lands. Only in 1547 his grandson Ivan IV Groznyi (the Terrible) would proclaim himself Tsar of All Russias, hence, claiming the ancestry of Kievan Rus.


In the same post:
Also, if we say that event is supposed to historically trigger in 1547 only (but is allowed to trigger earlier if the conditions are met too early), we shouldn't leave Muscovy without leaders and events for the time between 1495 (which is wrong anyway, Kholmsky died in 1493) and 1547 if everything does develop historically, now should we?
So, RUS events and leaders for MOS up to 1547?

I think we need to copy and paste them with RUS -> MOS and make some necessary tweaks, or?

But at this point, almoravid should make his own suggestions with provided modifications about which event is to be added in MOS file.

Even RUS_1480.ai should be used by MOS for colonization and combat list.


EDIT: about MOS_40010.
We need to twek event title and actionname too: "The Empire of Russia" and "Become the Third Rome" could be changed into "The Gathering of All Russian Lands" and "Good".
 
Last edited:
Every russian minor should have as first condition to own and control it´s own capital just like Muscovy has for it´s capital in Tula province. So NOV needs to own Novgorod, RYA needs to own Ryazan (where it´s located now), TVE Tver and Pskov owns Pskov.

And every russian state should have to annex at least two of the other states - NOV, RYA and TVE have to annex Muscovy (and own/control Tula) and one of the other russian states, MOS just has to annex at least one of the others.
What about moving the start date of Formation of the Empire of Russia from 1480 to 1547 in the event concerning the Russian minors except Muscovy? Otherwise we would even need to change the original paradox event description.

In those case we would need to add the trigger that BYZ doesn't exist.

As amoravid said, other Russian minors, except Tver and of course Muscovy, are fantasy and put in agceep for gameplay reasons. So why not to try to go back onto the historical path for them?
 
According to Almoravid's suggestion to add in the trigger of MOS_40010:

Code:
	OR = {	ai = yes
		NOT = { exists = STE } 
	}

I think we could also include it. In case we would need to reduce the requested 190 relation to BYZ to a more acceptable 150.

We already have an event to throw off the tatar yoke (standing at the Ugra) and the creation of Russia event does check that MOS is no vassal of the Golden Horde anymore (or anyone else). Even if the GH would still exist it would pose no threat to MOS or be able to hinder them from further expansion as the Golden Horde by March 1480 (the earliest date at which MOS can become RUS if all conditions are fulfilled) will have lost the areas of Crimea, Kazan and Sibir and due to it´s destabilizing events will be only a shadow of it´s former self.

However demanding that the GH does not exist at all (which historically would be years later after Mengli Giray conquered their capital as in our event STE287002) would require us to move all leaders and events up to at least 1502 from the RUS to the MOS files (and to have them in both files and to make sure that no event or leader appears twice).

So: much work for an unnecessary change.
 
Last edited:
I actually agree that it doesn't make sense to deprive Moscow of leaders and events because Byzantium got itself saved from destruction.

That´s why the current suggestion to change the event to become Russia has a way for MOS to become RUS even if BYZ ahistorically still exists.

It's like making proclamation of Great Britain to be dependent on it being Protestant, because the historically, it was a Protestant (Anglican), and not Catholic England, that formed Britain. It's not like the Russian Duke can't pull off a Dushan and proclaim himself to be the emperor regardless of Constantinople's claims. And, like it had already been mentioned, Russia's claim to continue the Roman Empire was only semi-official - the list of the Czar's titles didn't mention Rome.

It was more in the line of becoming the last free defender of Orthodoxy after the fall of Byzanz and the other remnants of the empire in Morea and Trebizond and continuing the line of orthodox emperors than claiming to be the emperor of Rome. However the russian rulers did adopt the byzantine autocratic style of rule and their imperial symbols (like the doubleheaded eagle).

Player intervention in the Balkans or Asia Minor can make it possible.

Player intervention can make everything in the game possible or impossible. As I wrote to Almoravid in one of the posts of this thread: If a player really goes out of his way to do something ahistorical then the triggers of the AGCEEP events that try to check if the situation is historical or comparable can´t take into account that a player altered history beyond the ability of the mod to repair it. Say a human player of Sweden conquered all russian states and Lithuania - then we will never have Russia forming. Our events can´t take EVERYTHING into account because a player can cause changes that an AI controlled country can´t achieve.
 
What about moving the start date of Formation of the Empire of Russia from 1480 to 1547 in the event concerning the Russian minors except Muscovy? Otherwise we would even need to change the original paradox event description.

Not at all. The events description is:
"Historically, following his marriage to Zoe Paleologus in 1472 and throwing off the Mongol yoke in 1480, Ivan III proclaimed himself czar of all Russians shortly thereafter".

*Historically* meaning that this is what historically happened and which might be different in your specific game when you throw off the Mongol yoke earlier or BYZ falls long before or long after 1453. We have a lot of descriptions in events in which the text describes what historically happened while the event may still trigger if a comparable situation in the game exists.

And the russian principalities already have diverting text descriptions that are more generic and don´t include references about Ivan:
"Historically, in the 16th century the Roman Empire of Constantinople was long gone and its revival viewed as impossible. The Orthodox Faith never had a head figure like the Pope of the Catholic Faith. It however was mostly guided from Constantinople by the Patriarch there. As the Sunni Muslim Ottomans used the Patriarchs hostage-like situation for there own political gains many Orthodox countries felt appalled and started to loosen the chains of tradition. There had not existed a country as mighty as the Byzantines until...Russia was formed. Russia was created from the notion of full control of all those orthodox people that once had been Christianized from Kiev. This together with the fact that there was only one Orthodox country powerful enough to take up the mantle of the fallen Byzantines made the solution perfect and, thus the Greatest of Princedoms changed into the Empire of Russia"

However we should move the start date of the events of every russian minor - just like the start date of the MOS event - from January 1480 to March 1480. AI controlled none of the russian minors will achieve to become Russia anyway without player intervention.
 
Last edited:
@ ConjurerDragon

Please, try to reply to correct post, as to avoid misunderstanding.


Not at all. The events description is:
"Historically, following his marriage to Zoe Paleologus in 1472 and throwing off the Mongol yoke in 1480, Ivan III proclaimed himself czar of all Russians shortly thereafter".

*Historically* meaning that this is what historically happened and which might be different in your specific game when you throw off the Mongol yoke earlier or BYZ falls long before or long after 1453. We have a lot of descriptions in events in which the text describes what historically happened while the event may still trigger if a comparable situation in the game exists.
You quoted the wrong post of mines to answer with these sentences.

In my post #122 I have suggested to re-phrase the event description of MOS_40010 and haven't asked for moving the start date.

I agree with almoravid in changing the text, as the one we currently have in MOS_40010 is *historically* wrong.

And the russian principalities already have diverting text descriptions that are more generic and don´t include references about Ivan:
"Historically, in the 16th century the Roman Empire of Constantinople was long gone and its revival viewed as impossible. The Orthodox Faith never had a head figure like the Pope of the Catholic Faith. It however was mostly guided from Constantinople by the Patriarch there. As the Sunni Muslim Ottomans used the Patriarchs hostage-like situation for there own political gains many Orthodox countries felt appalled and started to loosen the chains of tradition. There had not existed a country as mighty as the Byzantines until...Russia was formed. Russia was created from the notion of full control of all those orthodox people that once had been Christianized from Kiev. This together with the fact that there was only one Orthodox country powerful enough to take up the mantle of the fallen Byzantines made the solution perfect and, thus the Greatest of Princedoms changed into the Empire of Russia"

However we should move the start date of the events of every russian minor - just like the start date of the MOS event - from January 1480 to March 1480. AI controlled none of the russian minors will achieve to become Russia anyway without player intervention.

In my post #123 I've suggested to move the start date from 1480 to 1547, for these reasons:

- there is no reference to Ivan III
- the descriptions says "Historically, in the 16th century the Roman Empire of Constantinople was long gone...".

So if we don't want to have events dealing with the future (in 1480 you cannot speak about things still to happen after 20 years at least..) or dealing with orthodoxy, without considering the status of BYZ,

here we need to move the start date in what you prefer but after 1500 (so why not 1547?) and add the trigger of BYZ as not existing.

Otherwise we need to completely change the description of those events firing for Russian minors, except the one for Moscovy.


EDIT:

We have a lot of descriptions in events in which the text describes what historically happened while the event may still trigger if a comparable situation in the game exists.
Could you give me an example of this? As for now I cannot remember which one of them is currently in use.

However they deal with already happened things and not with what it still has to happen, or? I don't talk about evolutions such as "with this treaty Spain would have done, gone...in the centuries to come..." which could be included in a description.

With the pointed events, there isn't an evolution as BYZ could still exist and those events deal with something still to happen somewhere after 1501.
 
Last edited:
...
I agree with almoravid in changing the text, as the one we currently have in MOS_40010 is *historically* wrong.

No the description is accurate, it´s just an interpretation of "proclaiming".

In my post #123 I've suggested to move the start date from 1480 to 1547, for these reasons:

- there is no reference to Ivan III
- the descriptions says "Historically, in the 16th century the Roman Empire of Constantinople was long gone...".

So if we don't want to have events dealing with the future (in 1480 you cannot speak about things still to happen after 20 years at least..) or dealing with orthodoxy, without considering the status of BYZ,

Which is why the events descriptions do not describe what happened exactly in THAT game at THAT time - as that can change from game to game - but what *historically* happened.
1480 is not the exact historical date at which Muscovy transformed into Russia - there is no exact historical date when that happened rather a process with several preconditions and taking years. And we need a wide range of years so that even the AI when controlling Muscovy can achieve to form Russia.

However 1480 isn´t the date at which in the game MOS becomes RUS - it´s just the *earlierst* date at which it can achieve that, the "startdate" of the event. 1480 or any date thereafter until 1820. This huge range of years means that we can´t have a specific description of the situation in the game as the event could happen 1480. Or 1520. Or 1700. Or 1800. Every specific description may be wrong when compared to the situation in the game at the time the event fires.

here we need to move the start date in what you prefer but after 1500 (so why not 1547?) and add the trigger of BYZ as not existing.

Otherwise we need to completely change the description of those events firing for Russian minors, except the one for Moscovy.

Why? What *historically* happened will always be the same and can be used as descriptive text for events - even if the situation in the game may slightly differ from that. Historically it´s correct that Byzanz was long gone in the 16th century regardless if in the game *in very few ahistorical situations* BYZ may still exist.

Could you give me an example of this? As for now I cannot remember which one of them is currently in use.

Simply search for the word "historically" in the events descriptions ^^
 
No the description is accurate, it´s just an interpretation of "proclaiming".
That's why I suggest to use "...proclaimed himself ruler of all Russian lands. Only in 1547 his grandson Ivan IV Groznyi (the Terrible) would proclaim himself Tsar of All Russias, hence, claiming the ancestry of Kievan Rus."

So, you, me or almoravid have not to find a *historical* justification to interpret it.



Which is why the events descriptions do not describe what happened exactly in THAT game at THAT time - as that can change from game to game - but what *historically* happened.
1480 is not the exact historical date at which Muscovy transformed into Russia - there is no exact historical date when that happened rather a process with several preconditions and taking years. And we need a wide range of years so that even the AI when controlling Muscovy can achieve to form Russia.

However 1480 isn´t the date at which in the game MOS becomes RUS - it´s just the *earlierst* date at which it can achieve that, the "startdate" of the event. 1480 or any date thereafter until 1820. This huge range of years means that we can´t have a specific description of the situation in the game as the event could happen 1480. Or 1520. Or 1700. Or 1800. Every specific description may be wrong when compared to the situation in the game at the time the event fires.
You are mixing again my posts!

I repeat : I WAS TALKING ABOUT MOVING START DATE IN THE EVENTS CONCERNING OTHER RUSSIAN MINORS, NOT ABOUT MUSCOVY !!!!
PLEASE, CHECK POST #123!

if it is because I can't write in correct english, well I do apologize, but you should not answer interpreting/understanding posts in your favour because of poor language.


Why? What *historically* happened will always be the same and can be used as descriptive text for events - even if the situation in the game may slightly differ from that. Historically it´s correct that Byzanz was long gone in the 16th century regardless if in the game *in very few ahistorical situations* BYZ may still exist.
I said that the event has to refer about historically happened things, before or in the same moment the event fires, otherwise the events refers to facts that are still to happen.

You filled two pages with posts and quotes about having BYZ not existing in the events forming Russia. So what happened? You changed your mind only when the events are twice ahistorically represented? Russian minors ahistorically forming Russia because of gamplay's sake and BYZ not dead???


Simply search for the word "historically" in the events descriptions ^^
Too much an easy answer from you. You reported, you quote. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Wow, didn't notice this. If this is indeed so, then yes, I think neither of the two should start with Tatar culture imho.

Then we would need to change in the 1419 scenario files:
1419_MOS_Muscovy.inc

Code:
country = {
	tag = MOS
	ai = "MOS_1419_Standard.ai"
	colonialattempts = 0
	colonialnation = yes
	major = no
	colonists = 0
	cancelledloans = 0
	extendedloans = 0
	treasury = 200
	inflation = 0
	merchants = 0
	religion = { type = orthodox }
	culture = {
		type = russian
		[color=red]type = naskapi[/color]
}

It will gain tatar (=naskapi in the gamefiles) culture again in event RUS 271030.
 
That's why I suggest to use "...proclaimed himself ruler of all Russian lands. Only in 1547 his grandson Ivan IV Groznyi (the Terrible) would proclaim himself Tsar of All Russias, hence, claiming the ancestry of Kievan Rus."

So, you, me or almoravid have not to find a *historical* justification to interpret it.

Almoravid himself argued that even Ivan III would see himself as the rightful ruler of all russians and the heir of the Kievan Rus as any Grand Duke of Muscovy even before becoming "Russia".
This is not tied to the 1547 coronation of Ivan IV. Rather the 1547 coronation is only the formal celebration of the alrady existing historical situation: That Muscovy already before the coronation had become the strongest orthodox state, claimed the byzantine imperial mantle and united all other russian principalities.

If we can´t agree on text better fitting to the assumption that claiming an imperial title beyond "Grand Duke" in letters to his contemporary monarchs was not "proclaiming himself czar" then I could agree to slightly modify that to "claiming" instead of proclaiming. Or leave the text as it was before.

You are mixing again my posts!

I repeat : I WAS TALKING ABOUT MOVING START DATE IN THE EVENTS CONCERNING OTHER RUSSIAN MINORS, NOT ABOUT MUSCOVY !!!!
PLEASE, CHECK POST #123!

In the events for the russian minors the same is true as for the event descriptions of Muscovy. But as they only with player intervention actually have a chance to become Russia and that is ahistorical I don´t see the problem of a description that is very generic and does only mention the historical situation in very wide terms. If the "historically in the 16 century BYZ long gone" sentence is what you see as a problem because that has not happened in 1480 - well ANY date in the text will be wrong if the event happens in 1600, 1700 or 1800 which may happen in some games.

if it is because I can't write in correct english, well I do apologize, but you should not answer interpreting posts in your favour because of poor language.

I have far less problems to understand what you mean than to understand some other posters ^^

I said that the event has to refer about historically happened things, before or in the same moment the event fires, otherwise the events refers to facts that are still to happen.

That would be nice, not? But we can´t do that. The events may happen in 1480 and then mentioning something about "historically BYZ long gone in the 16th century" would be too early. But if the events happen later any other date will be just as wrong and we could use no date at all in events.

So the only way to go is to keep on using "historically" and pointing out what the historical situation was even if the situation in the specific game is not exactly the same. That *in very few ahistorical games* NOV, TVE, PSK, RYZ are able to become Russia before "the 16th century" should be no problem for that.
Our main objecive should be to make sure that *in most games* it happens right.

You filled two pages with posts and quotes about having BYZ not existing in the events forming Russia. So what happened? You changed your mind only when the events are twice ahistorically represented? Russian minors ahistorically forming Russia because of gamplay's sake and BYZ not dead???

No, if you ask my personal opinion then *I* would not let *anyone* become Russia when BYZ still exists because I value the connection as leader of orthodoxy, heritage of the imperial byzantines, imperial doubleheaded eagle etc. more than "BIG Muscovy would have done it too." ;-)

However as AGCEEP is concensus driven I have to agree that RUS may be formed even if BYZ ahistorically survives (which in the fantasy scenario is a valid assumption) and so the event needs to be changed to reflect that.

And I agreed to changing the russian minors events to become Russia just as the MOS event already here:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...EEP-Russia&p=13252277&viewfull=1#post13252277
 
Almoravid himself argued that even Ivan III would see himself as the rightful ruler of all russians and the heir of the Kievan Rus as any Grand Duke of Muscovy even before becoming "Russia".
This is not tied to the 1547 coronation of Ivan IV. Rather the 1547 coronation is only the formal celebration of the alrady existing historical situation: That Muscovy already before the coronation had become the strongest orthodox state, claimed the byzantine imperial mantle and united all other russian principalities.

If we can´t agree on text better fitting to the assumption that claiming an imperial title beyond "Grand Duke" in letters to his contemporary monarchs was not "proclaiming himself czar" then I could agree to slightly modify that to "claiming" instead of proclaiming. Or leave the text as it was before.
Claiming is better. However, since there is no 1547 event, I would agree to give more information to the player by adding that thing about Ivan Groznyi.

And I agreed to changing the russian minors events to become Russia just as the MOS event already here:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...EEP-Russia&p=13252277&viewfull=1#post13252277
Ok, then changing in the trigger of Russian minors and unchanged text as to reflect the "Byzantium legacy" issue.
 
What about the principalty of Yaroslavl? It was a vasal of Muscovy and it is present in EU3...
The monarchs :
Code:
# Yaroslavl #

# Princes

historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 05270 }
	
	startdate = {
		year = 1386
	}
	deathdate = {
		year = 1426
	}
	name = "Ivan Bolshoy"
		
		DIP = 6
		ADM = 5
		MIL = 5
	dormant = no
	
}
historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 05271 }
	
	startdate = {
		year = 1426
	}
	deathdate = {
		
		year = 1434
	}
	name = "Fedor"
		
		DIP = 4
		ADM = 4
		MIL = 3
	dormant = no
}
historicalmonarch = {
	id = { type = 6 id = 05272 }
	
	startdate = {
		
		year = 1438
	}
	deathdate = {
		year = 1480 #  death that year
	}
	name = "Alexandr Bryukhatiy"
		DIP = 5
		ADM = 5
		MIL = 5
	dormant = no
}
#Annexed by Muscovy in 1463
# Ids free to 05289
 
What about the principalty of Yaroslavl? It was a vasal of Muscovy and it is present in EU3...
...
[/CODE]

Tags *were* limited back when AGCEEP started still playing in EU2.
However even now in FtG where the number of tags is not that limited there still is the problem where to place a "Principality of Yaroslavl" on the vanilla map
Geographically Yaroslavl would be northeast of Muscovy
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/russian_growth_1300_1796.jpg
, but the vanilla map does not have Yaroslavl, but Vologda at that place.

IMO having yet another only half-independant russian minor (we have Muscovy, Tver, Pskov, Novgorod, Ryazan) adds nothing to the game. It would not play differently to the other russian minors who vanished within the first 100 years of the game.
 
Tags *were* limited back when AGCEEP started still playing in EU2.
However even now in FtG where the number of tags is not that limited there still is the problem where to place a "Principality of Yaroslavl" on the vanilla map
Geographically Yaroslavl would be northeast of Muscovy
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/russian_growth_1300_1796.jpg
, but the vanilla map does not have Yaroslavl, but Vologda at that place.

IMO having yet another only half-independant russian minor (we have Muscovy, Tver, Pskov, Novgorod, Ryazan) adds nothing to the game. It would not play differently to the other russian minors who vanished within the first 100 years of the game.

What 's the point of Sulu, Ternate or Luwu in gameplay ? They arent played diferently to the other indonesian minors who were conquered by the dutch...why are they in the game?
And the problem with the map : there are worse places in the vanilla mp in Central Asia(the imposimple Aral¡) or West Africa and Yaroslavl can fill the actual province of Mosvka(in the game is owned by Muscovy and thename of the city is Yaroslavl),... Certainy the only problem was the shortage of TAGs ..The problem was solved and there isnt a true reason for including certain nations or excluding other for the mod....
 
What 's the point of Sulu, Ternate or Luwu in gameplay ? They arent played diferently to the other indonesian minors who were conquered by the dutch...why are they in the game?

The dutch conquered indonesia rather late in the game so those states exist for several hundred years after historically all russian minors had been conquered by Muscovy.

And the problem with the map : there are worse places in the vanilla mp in Central Asia(the imposimple Aral¡) or West Africa and Yaroslavl can fill the actual province of Mosvka(in the game is owned by Muscovy and thename of the city is Yaroslavl),... Certainy the only problem was the shortage of TAGs ..The problem was solved and there isnt a true reason for including certain nations or excluding other for the mod....

The shortage of tags was the major problem but not the only one when considering if to add a state or not.
There were around 300 states in the holy roman empire alone before Napoleon and still 80 after him. Even on other maps than the vanilla map we can´t have ALL independant states that existed - and semi-independant states that historically did vanish in the first 100 years of the game are IMO less important than independant states that existed for most of the games timeframe.

In addition yet another one-province-minor state will mainly serve to make Muscovys task to unite all those minors and become Russia yet another step harder and we want Muscovy to become Russia in most games.
 
Last edited:
The dutch conquered indonesia rather late in the game so those states exist for several hundred years after historically all russian minors had been conquered by Muscovy.
/QUOTE]
What's the difference with having Ternate of Luwy provinces filled with very aggressive natives ? Nothing.. What is the point of "Timbuktu" or Balkh when they are conquered in less than 10 years? ... Why this prejudice against countries like Yaroslavl or Jolof or the Tarascans?The Tgs are unlimited¡.They can be in the right
The shortage of tags was the major problem but not the only one when considering if to add a state or not.
There were around 300 states in the holy roman empire alone before Napoleon and still 80 after him. Even on other maps than the vanilla map we can´t have ALL independant states that existed - and semi-independant states that historically did vanish in the first 100 years of the game are IMO less important than independant states that existed for most of the games timeframe.

In addition yet another one-province-minor state will mainly serve to make Muscovys task to unite all those minors and become Russia yet another step harder and we want Muscovy to become Russia in most games.

Yaroslavl is not diferent from Tver or Ryazan and Paradox itself add it in Europa unicersalis III¡They could add Ternate or the Tarascans but they included Ulm , Qasim and Yaroslavl¡ There is a free province (275) for this country , and one minor can be a chance for the other russian minors(or Lithuania) to defeat Moscu ¡
 
...
What's the difference with having Ternate of Luwy provinces filled with very aggressive natives ? Nothing..

You are completely right. For a player who plays an european nation most asian nations that at one time became targets of colonialism could be replaced by empty provinces with natives. However not everyone likes to play an european colonizer and some like to play an asian nation to see if they could withstand the europeans.

On the other hand - not only Ternate or Luwu could be filled with aggressive natives. Yaroslavl could be too and practically it would make only a small difference for the goal that Muscovy unites the area to form Russia ;-)

What is the point of "Timbuktu" or Balkh when they are conquered in less than 10 years? ... Why this prejudice against countries like Yaroslavl or Jolof or the Tarascans?The Tgs are unlimited¡.They can be in the right

As I wrote before: Tags are only one issue to be considered and that problem is no longer the limit it had been when AGCEEP still run under EU2.
Another reason is that any state needs at least 1 province on the map - that alone prevents us from adding dozens of small independant states
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_early_East_Slavic_states#The_Rise_of_Muscovy_.281380-1480.29

Yaroslavl is not diferent from Tver or Ryazan

Really? When were the russian principalities annexed by Muscovy? Could it be that Yaroslavl sooner than the others became a vassal of Muscovy and was annexed?
Did Yaroslavl in 1419 have the same chances to perhaps still defeat Muscovy, compete for the title of Grand Duke and become Russia like the states that exist in AGCEEP?

and Paradox itself add it in Europa unicersalis III¡They could add Ternate or the Tarascans but they included Ulm , Qasim and Yaroslavl¡ There is a free province (275) for this country , and one minor can be a chance for the other russian minors(or Lithuania) to defeat Moscu ¡

The goal of AGCEEP is to achieve some sort of historical accuracy. In the case of Muscovy that is that Muscovy should conquer the other russian principalities in *most* games and form Russia. Simply adding another semi-independant principality that requires one province to be taken away from Muscovy at the gamestart will make it harder for Muscovy to achieve that goal. When the change means that Muscovy fails to become Russia in most games then the change is contraproductive. Or in other words: Having Russia appear in most games is more important for the whole game than 1 more russian minor for the area around Muscovy.
http://www.agceep.net/introduction.htm#Mission

Edit: However that does not mean that I want to dismiss your proposal. Until now I have only stated my opinion, so let´s wait some time - perhaps a week as the forum is not that heavily frequented - to see if other people have an opinion about your suggestion. Helpful would be if you could add Yaroslavl into your own game and did run some tests if Muscovy still manages in *most* games to form Russia.
 
Last edited:
...I can't tell you about the better ratio to be adopted, but I believe that a pic wider than high is better when you consider that the title of the event, the description and the actions with available commands are to be displayed below it.

It would look like this when inserting the picture to the event:
Ugra.jpg
 
You misunderstand the politicial rulership and cultures ingame.
A state that does not rule provinces of a certain culture should normally not have that culture as state culture. That is because having a culture enables that state to better rule those provinces (30% more taxes, more manpower, less revoltrisk). Usually small states on a border / fringe between cultures receive them (e.g. Pommern with german and polish). A state CAN rule provinces of a culture without having it - it just becomes a matter if it is worthwhile.
Being ruled indirectly, as in being a vassal of another state, does not infer the culture of the overlord to the vassal.
So being ruled by mongols as their vassal does not mean that a state gains mongol as state culture. That there were cultural influences on the vassals, e. g. words in their language means that "russian" was influenced and changed a little bit, but not that the russian principalities all should equally be russian and mongol/tatar.
If you want to discuss cultures generally and why a state should have them, this thread would be fitting:
If only cultures of the russian principalities then the thread about russia I mentioned in my earlier post.


That would be the only reason to change anything. Because if one assumes that Byzantium was a doomed state from 1419 with no historical chance to survive (which is something very different than player intervention) then everything additional is either wasted or leads them to behave different than historical. e.g. Cyprus was once byzantine and is greek - but giving BYZ a core on Cyprus means that it will detoriate relations with Cyprus and might lead to an unhistorical and unwanted war.


No. Thessaloniki is only a small part of the province of Makedonia. BYZ lost control of the province long before the Ottomans came, already in 1355 they controlled only a small area around the city
And in 1387 the ottomans actually already laid siege to and conquered Thessaloniki and gave it back only when BYZ became their vassal.
That is already straining having a claimcore and IMO would almost only justify a casusbellicore. See the thread about cores for the differences that I mentioned in my earlier post.


And in the Byzantium thread for AGCEEP that concern was already discussed. Please read the old posts in the regional thread:
Not only words and not just overlordship, but at least two centuries of intercommunication.
Then why do you think the creators of the AGCEEP gave the Tatar culture to the Grand Principality of Moscow?
And if you are thinking the way you just described then why did you keep the Tatar Culture for the Principality of Ryazan? Without any historical explanation (in your way), but only in the purpose of balancing its starting position?

Please, stop thinking that I am not knowing the difference between the core types, lol.
I think that BYZ should have national cores on the lands lost not long before 1419 and claim or casusbelli cores on some more lands lost long before.

In case of such an authoritative mod as AGCEEP, one should think a hundred times before delete anything. (And only ten before adding).

And what about the defenders of the faith?

P. S.
And there is a way to think about the Basileia Romaion without the intention to save it — just letting it perish, but in a historical style and without overnerfing.
And in the Byzantium thread that you just cited the concerns were not discussed. Just a man, who said that 10000 population for 1419 Constantinopolis is a nonsense.
According to a quick calculation (see above) there should be at least 20000 population.
 
Last edited: