• Crusader Kings III Available Now!

    The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.


    Real Strategy Requires Cunning

unmerged(7398)

Lt. General
Jan 21, 2002
1.613
0
mozart.atpnet.com
Originally posted by Sun_Zi_36
and what happened to Taiwan? native uprising?
Yup, and they've recolonized it at least once that I've noticed, only to lose it again.
i have no idea why China colonised more of Amur so quick though (random conquisator?), it should have no knowledge of those provinces.
Manchu's (northern) knowledge, 1419:



China also starts with knowledge of Tchekunda.
[various diploannex solutions]
Which would you recommend?
 

unmerged(6881)

Lt. General
Dec 17, 2001
1.590
0
Visit site
Maybe apply the solution mentioned by Onslaught in case of Masovia? I mean that ai can be tricked by changes in the vassalization time in scenarion file. Vassalization can be set on later time that will prevent China from annexing these countries too early (in case of Korea it can be set at 1820 - I believe that Korea ws a solid vassal but never part of China and ai will not use evil tactics of player to release and vassalize Korea again, for example).
 

unmerged(10128)

Huangdi
Jul 8, 2002
1.833
0
Visit site
Originally posted by vilkouak
Maybe apply the solution mentioned by Onslaught in case of Masovia? I mean that ai can be tricked by changes in the vassalization time in scenarion file. Vassalization can be set on later time that will prevent China from annexing these countries too early (in case of Korea it can be set at 1820 - I believe that Korea ws a solid vassal but never part of China and ai will not use evil tactics of player to release and vassalize Korea again, for example).
How could that be done?

So China get to have what Manchu knows when it annexed them, right? i believe there r 2 more provinces within the treaty of Nerchinsk boundary that is not known by Manchu at the start (the map Korath is showing). should they have knowledge of it or should we rely on random explorers?

maybe taiwan's native aggression could be lowered by one level.

Actually, if we let the vassalisations remain, even with the solution vilkouak was talking about, it would be too easy for a human to diploannex them. but then again, even with royal marriage+military access, it wouldnt be that hard for a human to vassalise those countries and then diplo-annex them, right? Maybe we should go with the second solution just to make it a little more difficult for the human.
 

unmerged(5822)

Moved on
Sep 20, 2001
7.672
0
The solution to vassals being annexed far too soon is that the vassals are given a startdate (for the vassalization) which is later than the start date of the scenario. This, combined with the fact that countries are very unlikely to accept vassalization before 30 years have passed since the startdate of the vassalization, would make it highly unlikely (or impossible) that China would diplo-annex any of the starting vassals until it should be able to. If the vassalizations are given a startdate of 1500, there should be no annexing before 1530. This works just as well for the player as it does for the computer AI, too, since the player can decide no more than the AI countries when a vassal is ready to be annexed. The only thing that might interfere with this would be if the vassalization was broken and then renewed, and it would be possible for a player to abuse this fact (although for very little gain; in my eyes, it would be better to stick with getting half the tax income from the vassal provinces rather than annexing them and getting only 1/3 thanks to wrong culture and religion).

Since the main issue is keeping the AI on track, though, I don't think it is much of an issue, since it is impossible to keep an unwilling human player on track anyway. And even if a human plays China, not all will realize it is possible to "renew" the vassalization. Out of those who do, even fewer will think of it as worthwhile.:)
 

unmerged(10128)

Huangdi
Jul 8, 2002
1.833
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Korath
Were either of the others (Manchu and Tibet) peacefully integrated at some point? If so, when?
well, the Ming dynasty set up many administrative and military posts in Manchu (1409) and Tibet. The aim of the early Ming was to recover the former boundaries of Yuan dynasty. After the Mongols were defeated and the threat reduced, the Ming set up various leadership departments to rule different parts of Manchuria. The way it was ruled differed in different areas. Then of course in late 1500/early 1600 Narachi, the leader of one of the Manchu tribes began unifying Manchuria and defeating the Ming admintrative divisions.

in 1372, Tibet sent an ambassador to China expressing its willingness to accept Chinese supremacy. the next year the king of Tibet personally went to China and submitted sovereignty to China, and he was appointed protector of Tibet. Throughout Ming, China appointed various administrative, religious and military posts in Tibet. Although during late Ming the relationship with Tibet is not as close, Chinese sovereignty was never renounced by Tibet. Tibet was conquered by the Oyrat Mongols towards the end of Ming. Around early 1700 Qing dynasty reconquered Tibet.

In some maps, especially Chinese sources, u will see Manchu and Tibet as part of China. But even though administrator, etc were appointed in Tibet and Manchu they were of course not ruled as part of China proper and ruled differently from China proper during Ming dynasty.
 
Last edited:

unmerged(10128)

Huangdi
Jul 8, 2002
1.833
0
Visit site
hmm... so keeping the vassalisations should probably work with that solution. we could push the startdate to 1700. now i m wondering whether we should distinguish between how Korea's relation with China differed from how Manchu and Tibet was treated by China.
 

unmerged(10128)

Huangdi
Jul 8, 2002
1.833
0
Visit site
ok, i recommend this solution for the China situation:
Tibet and Manchu remain as vassals, startdate set at 1700. Tibet and Korea have a royal marriage with China. China further have military access thru Korea and an alliance with Korea. All of the relation bonuses i submitted should be cancelled, but Japan start off having -40 relation with Korea.

also implement these:
make the nation with three provinces in nothern Thailand (currently named Taungu) have -100 starting relations with all neighbouring countries (excl China), and -50 relations with China and all remaining nations in the SE Asian peninsula.

taiwan's native aggression lowered by one level. i believe it is currently "moderate", so lower it to "low".
 

unmerged(7398)

Lt. General
Jan 21, 2002
1.613
0
mozart.atpnet.com
Will do.


1492:



Asia Minor: The Ottomans force-annexed Dulkadir in 1455, and Cyprus from their Tunisian allies in 1461; soon after, they DoW'd Athens, annexing the Knights and taking Albania (from Ragusa) and Morea by 1474. They caught Serbia without allies in 1477, and annexed Tuscany and Sochi during a war with Georgia in 1490. Tuscany's and Georgia's third ally, the Papal States, would probably have been next - the Turk still had 40,000 troops in Firenze - had their government not fallen.

Ak Koyunlu has been taking in war what Qara Koyunlu gained by defection from the Timurids; unfortunately, they haven't been quite quick enough to take out QAR entirely.

France: Brittany, without allies, DoW'd Bourbonnais in the mid-1450s, and very quickly found itself losing all seven of its noncapital provinces to France, which turned around and diploannexed Bourbonnais itself immediately after. Burgundy found itself in a series of badboy wars in the 1460s, eventually losing its Irish possessions to defection and Holland and Zeeland to Friesland. In 1464, it annexed Brittany; Charles the Rash stayed there until he died fighting rebels in 1470. When the bug with the inheritance became clear, I switched out to the old version; in 1476, Austria inherited Burgundy in name only, receiving only Flandern, Brabant, and Luxemburg - Brittany and Munster were freed, and the rest went to France. Unsatisfied with the five provinces it received, France quickly annexed Brittany and took back the three provinces Burgundy had previously lost in Ireland.

HRE/Scandinavia: Denmark has waxed and waned, having gained and lost Oldenburg, Hannover, and Mecklenburg; on the plus side, they managed to take back Jamtland, Gander, and Greenland from the Swedes (all of which they lost in 1459), and have owned Istria since 1455. Silesia and Moravia are Magdeburg's, who also held Oldenburg and Hessen at one point. As with Brandenburg, all of Saxony's current non-core possessions were picked up through rebel defections. Austria has been picking up vassals left and right; Mantua, Salzburg, Baden, and Magdeburg (and their vassal, Saxony) pay the Habsburgs tribute. The only land they picked up besides the Burgundy inheritance was Zeeland, after it declared independence from Friesland.

PL/Russia: Muscowy took Suzdal in 1453, Tver in 1460, and Karelia, Kexholm, and Ingermanland in 1463; gave up Tver, Ryazan, and Pskov to the Polish-Lithuanian juggernaut (which has otherwise remained quiet) in 1468; and took the Siberian tradeposts in 1470. Lithuania, which despite remaining Poland's vassal is starting to look scary, was further boosted in 1488 by the defections of Memel (from Sweden) and Vorones (from the Horde).

Sicily's been rather amusing: the entire island broke off from Aragon, which took the western half back; Naples then force-annexed the remains in Messina, only to lose it and Apulia in a war with the Pope, who promptly lost both provinces in a government fall during their war with the Ottomans to - surprise! - an independent Sicily again.

Iberia - but this is better shown on the world map.



The Portuguese Ai doesn't know what every, every human Portugal does - ally with Spain. Spain is your friend. Keep Spain happy. Thus, Castile sacked Tago in 1484 and started dropping trade posts in Africa, and when Portugal's government fell in 1486, it picked up Kribi (which is a city by now), Gibraltar, the Azores, Oporto, and Algarve, and trading posts in Fernando Po, Recife, Bourbon, and Mauritius. (Douala was burnt and resettled).

All that green in Persia is the Mamelukes, who picked up Hormouz and Birjand from a Timurid government collapse, and the other three from Baluchistan in the first days of 1492.

East Africa: Ethiopia and Oman independently declared war on China around 1478, and burned all four of their trading posts in East Africa. Oman's been making an impressive comeback from their miserable start in general.

China has been at war continously since 1478; they've lost two provinces through defection to the Chagatai Khanate and two more to Manchu; a one-province Korea declared independence in 1488 and got their white peace exactly three years later.
 
Last edited:
Mar 27, 2002
2.756
0
Visit site
If someone wants to beta test with my Inca events enabled and post the results, that would be great. If not, that's perfectly alright too. :)
 

unmerged(10128)

Huangdi
Jul 8, 2002
1.833
0
Visit site
Korath: can u also give Manchu the 2 mountainous provinces that form the indented shape with Manchu known provinces? (i cant remember their names.) ie, leaving only 1 province from PTI.
 

unmerged(10128)

Huangdi
Jul 8, 2002
1.833
0
Visit site
i'll do some narration for u:
ottoman performing nicely. Moscow has taking the trading posts in the Urals. france made a big comeback. portugal have some colonies in Brazil. but why do we see spain in Africa? is that Oman colonising East Africa? China seem to be in some trouble with Manchuria and Korea declaring independence, Chagatai gainig a Tibetan province from China.
 

unmerged(5822)

Moved on
Sep 20, 2001
7.672
0
Originally posted by Sun_Zi_36
hmm... so keeping the vassalisations should probably work with that solution. we could push the startdate to 1700. now i m wondering whether we should distinguish between how Korea's relation with China differed from how Manchu and Tibet was treated by China.
Just a little tiny disclaimer from me: I have not yet actually tested it... it is based purely on reasoning; I know that nationalism can be affected in a way similar to this (it's used for Ireland in a scenario or two), and I believe the only way the AI can tell when a country has been vassal long enough is the startdate value. It should work with 99% "accuracy" though. If, however, it causes a nuclear meltdown in Russia I won't assume personal responsibility.;)
 

unmerged(5822)

Moved on
Sep 20, 2001
7.672
0
Originally posted by Sun_Zi_36
i'll do some narration for u:
ottoman performing nicely. Moscow has taking the trading posts in the Urals. france made a big comeback. portugal have some colonies in Brazil. but why do we see spain in Africa? is that Oman colonising East Africa? China seem to be in some trouble with Manchuria and Korea declaring independence, Chagatai gainig a Tibetan province from China.
Yep, that's Oman allright...
 

AVN

The Hiker
17 Badges
Sep 30, 2002
589
123
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
Originally posted by Sun_Zi_36
ok, i recommend this solution for the China situation:
Tibet and Manchu remain as vassals, startdate set at 1700.
I have one remark about this solution, if it works. Playability for the occasional player who isn't aware of the technical consequences of the AGC.

Such a player will not understand why he/she isn't able to diplo-annex Tibet or Manchu in 1422. That doesn't help in "selling" the AGC.
 

unmerged(5822)

Moved on
Sep 20, 2001
7.672
0
Originally posted by AVN
I have one remark about this solution, if it works. Playability for the occasional player who isn't aware of the technical consequences of the AGC.

Such a player will not understand why he/she isn't able to diplo-annex Tibet or Manchu in 1422. That doesn't help in "selling" the AGC.
I'm not sure if it would be much of a problem... China is not the most commonly played country (though it is played with medium frequency), and I would expect those who play to come here asking questions if something is odd or seems wrong...

That being said, what would happen if the countries were not Chinese vassals?
 

unmerged(10128)

Huangdi
Jul 8, 2002
1.833
0
Visit site
the vassalisation is there to similate historical accuracy. while using royal marriage+military access can arguably simulate it just as well, it may have some undesirable consequences in terms of game play. Tibet and Manchu being able to conduct its own diplomacy, form alliances etc will greatly increase the chance that they will break the royal marriage and mil acc, etc, therefore increasing the chance that China might conquer them. in game play, vassalisation is a much more stable relationship.

i dont think it makes a lot of difference whether the player knows u cant diplo-annex them or not. the only situation where it will make a difference is when someone would not have kept the vassalisation if they knew that it could not work until 1700. comparing with those that would have kept the vassalisation anyway or those that would not have kept the vassalisation anyway, this will be a small proportion. whats more, keeping the vassalisation actually is more beneficial than conquest (suffer religious and cultural penalties). also, if the person really wanted to diploannex, he would not have let the vassal break the vassalisation (when failed to diplo-annex) without reloading many times. if after many times it still fails, he would most likely come to us and ask why. finally, if the person is of such upright character that he never uses the reload trick, he may well accept it as historical accurate that Manchu and Tibet cant be diploannexed, and not complain about it.
 

unmerged(1923)

Mostly Lurking
Mar 17, 2001
378
0
Visit site
2 games as Romans (one 2.1, one 2.2)

In both: Hungarian Crusade against Turks fires after I reduced the Turks to 1 province. In effect it was the Hungarian Crusade to teach those silly Wallachians why they should not stay allied to the Ottomans. Also, in the first time around, the Venetians got the aid to the Hungarians event -- while at war with the Hungarians - sounds strange.

In both cases the Mamlukes got large -both times they annexed the Hedjaz early. In the 2.2 game they also diploannexed Qara Sheep and got much of Persia. In the first game they had somehow acquired Kutch - leading to a Roman COT in India worth more than 1600D by the late 1600's. :D

(Expansionist Mamlukes are a real pain to anyone who wants to connect to North Africa - Egypt as capital is such a pain when you need to wander off to take parts of Persia or even India to finally annex.)

In the first - Novograd still exists in 1693 as one province plus its 5 trans-Urals trading posts. (I don't understand why). The same game Russia stagnated and failed to move East --- but the Uzbeks had diploannexed Khazak, Sibir, Nogai and the Golden Horde - much of which revolted away, but the Uzbeks were between the Russians and the new Sibir and Khazaks.

In the first game, I never got the Byzantine event for Dalmatia/Italy shields because I vassalized Ragusa which then was quickly conquered by Spain, and when I was willing to take on Spain, it was too late.

Both games played at normal/normal, as is normal for me. :D