Lack of historical balance in AGC-EEP

[unmerged(19903)]

I'm playing Sweden in 1520 scenario - if this mod has to represent histotical accuracy, it's far from it

I played this scenario 3 times already, and that's what I see always:

- England gangbanged by France, Scotland and some catholic minors, almost isn't colonizing the NA
- Poland and Lithuania awfully weak, losing grounds faster than in the vanilla 1492 scen ( dividing Commonwealth on 2 nations was a terrible mistake in vanilla version - in AGC - EEP it's even worser because of russian tech-boost )
- Russia is too powerful, and it's able to compete in land technology race with most advanced nations ( nonsense...)
- Bohemia is now expanding in CE sometimes better than Austria ( probably thanks to this gold in their capital province )
- there's no place for colonization in Indonesia - this small moslem nations are just redundant :wacko:

Generally I've started playing to see more historical game, than in vanilla version and I'm quite dissapointed - new events are very interesting but balance of this mod is just questionable...

 

[Norrefeldt]

If you look for history repeated in every game, I suggest you play EP. It guides the major nations firmly against this goal. You also seem to be concerned with just European history, another choice to use EP instead.
There are things to be done here, but we don't aim for removing all the variations from history.

 

[unmerged(45766)]

- there's no place for colonization in Indonesia - this small moslem nations are just redundant :wacko:

That's one point I agree with. There just are so many states in India and Indonesia, that it is not very motivating for countries outside of Portugal to go in that direction. It is much more profitable to settle NA than Asia. The EU2's provincial management system just can't really reproduce the kind of european presence in asia when there are full states.

Especially where the AI is concerned, as it can't trade efficiently in a differnet continent. That's why Portugal systematically underperforms. This is what drives the need for historical events, to balance it (by giving it free provinces that cost no BB and that don't need wars to be fought).
But what if another country supplants Portugal ?

If possible, I'd suggest at least to put an option toggle : "Indonesian states and India's coastal provinces". This toggle would, if put on OFF, erase most of the states of Indonesia, and free several coastal provinces currently owned by Vijayanagar and others.



PS : and when I speak of Indonesia and India, I forget to talk about eastern Africa, which is rather crowded too. Where those states really so much more organized than native populations in NA ?

 

[Garbon]

Additionally, you are playing using the 1520 scenario, something that is barely supported and most definitely not guarenteed to give historical results.

 

[unmerged(19903)]

That's one point I agree with. There just are so many states in India and Indonesia, that it is not very motivating for countries outside of Portugal to go in that direction. It is much more profitable to settle NA than Asia. The EU2's provincial management system just can't really reproduce the kind of european presence in asia when there are full states.

Especially where the AI is concerned, as it can't trade efficiently in a differnet continent. That's why Portugal systematically underperforms. This is what drives the need for historical events, to balance it (by giving it free provinces that cost no BB and that don't need wars to be fought).
But what if another country supplants Portugal ?

If possible, I'd suggest at least to put an option toggle : "Indonesian states and India's coastal provinces". This toggle would, if put on OFF, erase most of the states of Indonesia, and free several coastal provinces currently owned by Vijayanagar and others.



PS : and when I speak of Indonesia and India, I forget to talk about eastern Africa, which is rather crowded too. Where those states really so much more organized than native populations in NA ?

Well, not only Portugal has this problem - also Netherlands - event about competition with Portugal in Indonesia is much less important because of all these minors there.

There are 2 countries colonizing in this region - NL and Portugal - reducing their possibilities of colonization makes them weaker than they were historically ( especially NL, which colonizes only carribean and Indonesia - Portugal is less affected because of African and Brazilian coast colonization ).

I have two more questions:

1) Why after "Catholic League" event ( it triggered around 1585 or something like that, in my game ) France is divided on France and French Catholics even if France is catholic ??? Additionally, presence of Hugenots usually divides France on 3 parts - I REALLY don't understand what's the point of creating "French Catholics" nation after the Catholic League event....

2) Why is culture of Geldre province german, and why NL don't have this culture as a state one, like a "friesen" culture ?

Additionally, you are playing using the 1520 scenario, something that is barely supported and most definitely not guarenteed to give historical results.

Well, after 3 days of playing these are not the news I would like to hear

 

[Garbon]

Well, after 3 days of playing these are not the news I would like to hear

Sometimes the truth is painful.

 

[unmerged(7597)]

Why after "Catholic League" event ( it triggered around 1585 or something like that, in my game ) France is divided on France and French Catholics even if France is catholic ??? Additionally, presence of Hugenots usually divides France on 3 parts - I REALLY don't understand what's the point of creating "French Catholics" nation after the Catholic League event....

If the event description isn't clear enough, you might try consulting a book on the French Wars of Religion, or Google "guise catholic league". In other words, WAD.

 

[unmerged(19903)]

If the event description isn't clear enough, you might try consulting a book on the French Wars of Religion, or Google "guise catholic league". In other words, WAD.

That's not the point - why League is treated from the same beginning as separate country ? At the beginning it should be positive event for France that should lead, in time, to the massive rebellion of ultra-catholic prov's - instead of this we have third main player in French territory.

I know that this can be interesting for for human player, but AI just cannot handle with it correctly

 

[unmerged(45766)]

Geldre turns dutch in an event later in the 15th century (purchase of Julich, I think).

 

[unmerged(19903)]

Geldre turns dutch in an event later in the 15th century (purchase of Julich, I think).

LOL, it was almost XVII cent. in my game, and Geldre was still german - I just edited it to dutch culture

 

[Loeffle]

I'm playing Sweden in 1520 scenario - if this mod has to represent histotical accuracy, it's far from it

I played this scenario 3 times already, and that's what I see always:

- England gangbanged by France, Scotland and some catholic minors, almost isn't colonizing the NA
- Poland and Lithuania awfully weak, losing grounds faster than in the vanilla 1492 scen ( dividing Commonwealth on 2 nations was a terrible mistake in vanilla version - in AGC - EEP it's even worser because of russian tech-boost )
- Russia is too powerful, and it's able to compete in land technology race with most advanced nations ( nonsense...)
- Bohemia is now expanding in CE sometimes better than Austria ( probably thanks to this gold in their capital province )
- there's no place for colonization in Indonesia - this small moslem nations are just redundant :wacko:

Generally I've started playing to see more historical game, than in vanilla version and I'm quite dissapointed - new events are very interesting but balance of this mod is just questionable...

Hmm, maybe you ended up in a "strange" game?

Im in 1774 now and the world looks very historical The only "not-historical" thing is that Poland is still very big and alive, and that I (= Lithuania) own Eastern Europe, half of Scandinavian, Northern Germany and Labrador (!).

Poland wasnt affected by me at all - I only blocked Russia from Poland and eliminated Prussia ... But Poland was very strong towards the West ... (not historical)

Russia is doing what they should ... even if they own less in Eastern Europe as they should ...
England does well, did too well in NOrthern America

Every game is different, but I think AGCEEP is quite a fine thing I saw more unrealistic things in normal EU II mods ...

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Well, not only Portugal has this problem - also Netherlands - event about competition with Portugal in Indonesia is much less important because of all these minors there.

There are 2 countries colonizing in this region - NL and Portugal - reducing their possibilities of colonization makes them weaker than they were historically ( especially NL, which colonizes only carribean and Indonesia - Portugal is less affected because of African and Brazilian coast colonization ).

Also the colonization of Africa and America doesn't work, especially for India. The level of society and infrastuture was advanced enough that colonization similar to what Ambassador proposed is preposterous. They had enough control on their borders that such colonization would have been impossible.

Portugal and others were able to colonize because of military force and payoffs, not by sending colonist from Europe.

 

[unmerged(45766)]

Also the colonization of Africa and America doesn't work, especially for India. The level of society and infrastuture was advanced enough that colonization similar to what Ambassador proposed is preposterous. They had enough control on their borders that such colonization would have been impossible.

Portugal and others were able to colonize because of military force and payoffs, not by sending colonist from Europe.

But the AI is unable to do so. I don't remember ever seeing an european country winning a war against an asian country, and conquering some province in the peace (let alone keep it, they can't even keep the provinces they receive by events ).

And, given the BB- and culture/religion-aspects, a player is much more susceptible of rushing towards NA than India/Indonesia. Heck, ever tried shipping an army from Lisbon to Bali, large enough to beat the AI's supersized armies ? It's just not profitable, costs too much compared to the colonization of Virginia or Pennsylvania.

We're down to a choice : do we want a historical setup of the nations of Indonesia/India/Eastern Africa, or do we want to see historical Portugal's and Netherlands'colonizations in the east ? For me, portuguese and dutch colonization (or the colonization of the area by any european) were more important, history-wise, than the existence of a smattering of small local potentates. But since some people like to play in Asia, I propose a toggle option to satisfy them.

Otherwise, this is screwing two very important countries, and hampering two others (France and UK, who were involved in India but a bit later).

 

[unmerged(21523)]

well, the East-African sity-states together with the states of India and Indoneisa were far better organized than any NA tribe of the period and fully deserve recognition as states. The Dutch, Portuguese, and Ebglish never colonized India or Indonesia so much as they conquered or bullied pre-existing states. If the AI is too stupid to manage these conquests (which it is) then we should try to find a way to get the AI to behave more intelligently rather grossly distort Asian history.

 

[Garbon]

We're down to a choice : do we want a historical setup of the nations of Indonesia/India/Eastern Africa, or do we want to see historical Portugal's and Netherlands'colonizations in the east ? For me, portuguese and dutch colonization (or the colonization of the area by any european) were more important, history-wise, than the existence of a smattering of small local potentates. But since some people like to play in Asia, I propose a toggle option to satisfy them.

Well then, you've come for the wrong mod. Although its never been an officially policy, its been implicitly stated that ROTW nations get primacy in their regions.

 

[unmerged(17856)]

Reading through the topics and tendencies of many of the more recent threads and posts, as well as the mission statement, I've come to note something that may deserve some careful thought.

Consider Articles 1, 2 and 7 of the mission statement: generally, they define historical accuracy and its place within the project, and provide some tentative boundaries regarding its relationship with cross-regional issues and conflicts. Starting with Article 2,

2. The AGCEEP strives to produce historical accuracy for all AGCEEP states with a demonstrably high probability, the value of which to be determined in the appropriate regional thread, or the HC if requested. A proposed addition that advances its own regional issue to the recognizable detriment of another regional issue will not be implemented[bold added].

Because there is nothing regarding historical accuracy in article 2, we are left to wonder what the general relationship is between historical accuracy and a given "regional issue".

For starters, we know what historical accuracy is because it is defined in article 1,

1. The AGCEEP recognizes historical accuracy to be any and all issues of historical circumstance, realism or dynamics that maintain or facilitate historical outcome.[bold added]

. Now, in searching through the mission statement, article 7 could be interpreted as describing this relationship between a given "regional issue" and historical accuracy

7. The AGCEEP strives for consistency and maintenance of standards across regions, provided such consistency does not interfere with historical accuracy.

whereby, essentially, "consistency and maintenance of standards across regions" can be interpreted as a reference to those guarantees described in article 2, provied such guarantees "do not interfere with historical accuracy"...

I would venture to guess that the recent multitudes of criticisms directed at the level of historical accuracy we are obtaining in our project is perhaps symptomatic of this apparent conflict enshrined in our very mission statement. IMHO, we should consider making an attempt to clarify this relationship. Should a consensus be reached, we should act to amend the mission statement accordingly.

 

[unmerged(19903)]

Well, imo these Indonesian minors should be ( in majority ) erased from Indonesia
- you could add option to turn them on/off, but I'm sure that almost every player would choose NL and Portugal historical conquests than some useless minors in Indonesia...

 

[Garbon]

Well, imo these Indonesian minors should be ( in majority ) erased from Indonesia
- you could add option to turn them on/off, but I'm sure that almost every player would choose NL and Portugal historical conquests than some useless minors in Indonesia...

You must realize this isn't really a new debate. We had large discussions about this over a year ago when it was decided whether or not to put them in. Indonesia could actually be quite interesting if we had someone to inject more events/history in the area.

 

[unmerged(45766)]

You must realize this isn't really a new debate. We had large discussions about this over a year ago when it was decided whether or not to put them in. Indonesia could actually be quite interesting if we had someone to inject more events/history in the area.

Exactly. If there is noone to make such events, or at least give the ideas, is it because people are not so interested in playing them ? When you compare with the depths of the events in Europe, Japan, or in the Middle East, you see a great difference.

then we should try to find a way to get the AI to behave more intelligently rather grossly distort Asian history.

Grossly distort Asian history ? Were the colonizations by the portuguese/dutch/english/(french) unimportant events ?

Just a simple comparison.
Pre-1500 :
- North America is split among numerous native tribes & nations, absolutely not unified
- Indonesia/Malaysia/India/Africa are split among numerous small potentates (tough not as isolated as american natives, I agree)
1500-1787/1950 :
- NA is fully dominated by europeans (at the end)
- I/M/I/A are fully dominated by europeans, in a way or another
Post 1787/1950 :
- NA is split among three great (in size) countries, along borders defined by the european colonists (in opposition to natives or to geography)
- India is nearly unified, Indonesia too, Malaysia too, and Africa is split among larger countries that several centuries ago, along borders defined by european colonists.

Apparently, from a geopolitical POV, the effect of european countries on the formation of countries in all those areas is the same.

And that you like it or not, Europe has been the ruler of the world for most of the EU2 time-frame. It is the current setup that prevents historical situations in Asia.


Oh, and by the way, I wonder how you will make the AI behave better. Even Daywalker's mod needed to resort to AI-cheat-events to have Portugal "grab" (more precisely receiving freely) provinces from asian powers.

 

[Sute]{h]

Just wanted to add that the same problem exists in India. India NEVER ends up on British hands EVER. The solution should be events and improved AI files in both cases.