Sute]{h said:
Given the religious and cultural penalties involved, will it actually pay off for Britain to own India?
-
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.
Given the religious and cultural penalties involved, will it actually pay off for Britain to own India?
AHA!
At last someone expresses I've been waiting for in all those discussions.
The conflict here in my humble opinion is not bound to events or countries at all, it is bound to game engine.
Under current setup I myself do not consider having India under my feet as UK would be so much of a benefit as it historically were.
A vassal, yes, but not a territory of my own (which it historically was).
This portaits a conflict between our effort and the engine setup and is not a problem we can dodge.
binTravkin said:
Nice to have soemone of the same opinion...
Maybe increase the wealth of India and increase the penalty for hindu nations to balance it?
This would make India very rich for the muslim invaders later on, but it might help them to perform better so it doesn't have to be a bad thing.
It would also Mughals be strong as historically if they ever get to India (or even get created).
Not a bad idea.
But that was not my point actually.
My point was that people are arguing over things that conflict and can't be dodged or just solved.
You can apply a substitute of what game lacks (by fiddling with the province.csv or adding taxes etc thru events), but you can't make game to portrait history at a level you're wanting.
It's just a game after all, not RL.
And my fix for the problem with Portugal and Africa is the same as was for Portugal and Seuta/Ceuta.
You gave POR a shield on it, why don't you give her a shield on a few African provinces.
After all Seuta was not any territory POR had rights on, they were just thinking they had rights on it.
Why don't you add Cote d'Oro and some other locations for the same reason - because POR wanted those territories, not actually "deserved" them?
It will not change a thing on the BB pane (as they're pagans), but an AI POR will want to go there.
Also reducing armies of africans or at least reducing their military DP would be pretty nice.
This won't ensure the AI will be able to actually win them.binTravkin said:
I agree on the tax matter. Currently, the provinces that don't produce chinaware, spices or other high-valued goods are far from being beneficial to conquer. Some provinces are still interesting once you have a high infra & trade, but the AI (again) is much lower on getting high enough (and isn't as picky as a player on the targetted provinces, doubling its disadvantage).
However, I disagree with one thing : we are not as stuck as you think. All we have is to be more careful about evaluating the degree of centralization/independence a state needs to be considered as a country in EU2. It's not because we have natives in a province that there weren't any countries in there, but it's just that they didn't have sufficient political/military power to greatly interact with their neighbours, or didn't have the will to do so. In such situations as Indonesia, we could simply have very numerous and highly aggressive natives that would need being checked. The AI is slightly better at handling natives than at conquering countries on the other side of the world (they only have to kill all of them once). EU1 was doing just this in India, a long time ago.
Ambassador said:
Or perhaps its just that no one has gotten to them as of yet? I mean there are only so many of us who are actually putting in effort to get things done (and some of us take long leaves
o ) and so we don't have things all properly setup in a quick fashion.I really do wish you'd stop wasting time, as what you are pushing for simply isn't going to happen. Look through old posts if you want to see about what is considered a state and what isn't. Indonesia, Africa, and India by in large made the cut (with dropped ones like Xhosa); many american nations did not. And thats pretty much the end of subject.
And to be honest, there were different province ceding and core granting ideas mentioned in all of the threads for Africa, India, and Indonesia...they in large part we never implemented as the people working in those regions could care less. (There was an elaborate take down of the Zanj planned for Portugal...which I was at one point working on. Then I moved on as I didn't care much for Portuguese history and there was someone clamoring to do the work...who subsequently moved on as well I might add )
)
Portugal and the Netherlands cannot be made to conquer territory in Asia, Africa, and Indonesia, beyond a very limited extent, without AI cheats. Making conquest event sequences for this, without accompanying AI cheats, will mostly just be a human player kind of thing.
idontlikeforms said:
I think that human players should get toeholds as well...although not completely necessary as the human player will do whatever he/she wants anyway.
![Sute]{h](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/styles/paradox/owneditems/avatars/Stellaris_pre_order/s/stellaris_avatars_fungoid_12_special.png){kind=avatar}
I for one support the idea of a "British India" tag used to symbolise the East India Trading Compagny. Of course this has been discussed before and met with some resistance.binTravkin said:
Ambassador said:
I do not oppose giving the Portugues/Dutch/English AIs cores, ships, events, or other helps designed to get them to carry out their proper conquests (check my events for Malabar, I give Portugal and later the Netherlands a core on Cochin for when these states controlled the province, I've also contributed to IDLF's EP mod, which has a great many AI cheats to facilitate European conquests in Asia), I'm arguing against the idea that Asian states should be deleted as that grossly distorts the history of the region. If we delete Makassar to make things easier on the Dutch AI why not ax Byzantium to help the Ottoman AI? When the Dutch conquered Makassar they did so by defeating a country with an army not by overrunning a band of "natives" (they also did so in alliance with another Indonesian state). The Indonesian states deserve statehood because they were fully-fledged states that did all the things that make a viable EU state: they interacted with their neighbors, signed treaties, fought wars, and were often more important players on the world scene than certain minor European principalities.
Also, remember that by 1787 (or even 1819) much of Indonesia/Malaysia/Africa remained under the control of indigenous states. The great era of European conquests occurs in the second half of the nineteenth century. India falls relatively early but even there the British gain India in a series of bloody wars lasting about 100 years. The point here being that for Europeans in the EU timeframe to conquer these Asian states was much more difficult than sending the dispatching of colonists from the homeland.
it was discussed long before that company's of trade would not be used as countries for any reason because it would open a can of worms, especially since we weren't allowing peaceful nations like Ragusa in which were legitimate nations.Sute]{h said:
The BEITC was the specific example shot down.
Garbon, nothing can prevent me from pushing to get the toggle to dispose of the asian nations.
You agree that Portugal/Netherlands/England/France (in a smaller extent) have a very hard time dealing in Asia, let alone achieving their historical goals, don't you ?
Do you also agree that having countries in Indonesia, India, Africa, is the cause of that underachievement ?
If so, what do you propose ? Chains of events ? You'd have to make strict chains, without choice nor freedom for the AI to spoil it, that is you can't rely on the AI waging wars (unless you start pouring AI-cheats like crazy, which would in turn unbalance other parts of the world). I have already seen that AI-cheats were not liked in AGCEEP.
So, what other solutions do you propose ? A bit louder please, I don't hear anything.
Now, on the question of knowing who likes more to play with an european country, or wishes to see them behave historically, and who prefers to play with asian countries, even if it means screwing a couple of the most important nations of the world for the period, you could just ask to the users.
And by the way, I was under the impression that modders started to work on periods/areas/events that they liked and/or know best. Yet, Netherlands, Portugal & England get loads of events... I'd say that 9/10th of the events, at least, are for Europe.
Now, don't misunderstand me. Sure, it would be great to have as many countries as possible, and as deep an historical feeling as possible. But too many details, when too little thoughts have been put on their consequences, is detrimental to bigger parts. It is Europa Universalis, not Asia Universalis or Africa Universalis. Why ? Because over the course of EU2's timeframe, Europe came to a position of leadership (or even hegemony).
And to add a small metaphor : when you build a house, do you start putting the nails for the clock in the kitchen, or do you start by laying the foundations ?
You agree that Portugal/Netherlands/England/France (in a smaller extent) have a very hard time dealing in Asia, let alone achieving their historical goals, don't you ?
Do you also agree that having countries in Indonesia, India, Africa, is the cause of that underachievement ?
If so, what do you propose ? Chains of events ? You'd have to make strict chains, without choice nor freedom for the AI to spoil it, that is you can't rely on the AI waging wars (unless you start pouring AI-cheats like crazy, which would in turn unbalance other parts of the world). I have already seen that AI-cheats were not liked in AGCEEP.
So, what other solutions do you propose ? A bit louder please, I don't hear anything.
Now, on the question of knowing who likes more to play with an european country, or wishes to see them behave historically, and who prefers to play with asian countries, even if it means screwing a couple of the most important nations of the world for the period, you could just ask to the users.
And by the way, I was under the impression that modders started to work on periods/areas/events that they liked and/or know best. Yet, Netherlands, Portugal & England get loads of events... I'd say that 9/10th of the events, at least, are for Europe.
Now, don't misunderstand me. Sure, it would be great to have as many countries as possible, and as deep an historical feeling as possible. But too many details, when too little thoughts have been put on their consequences, is detrimental to bigger parts. It is Europa Universalis, not Asia Universalis or Africa Universalis. Why ? Because over the course of EU2's timeframe, Europe came to a position of leadership (or even hegemony).
And to add a small metaphor : when you build a house, do you start putting the nails for the clock in the kitchen, or do you start by laying the foundations ?
I'm not trying to stop you, merely pointing out that unless things have changed mightily, you are wasting your time.
Ambassador said:
And for another bit of advice, don't use this line as an argument, historically, it hasn't worked well when discussing this mod.
The main reason why it is difficult to model the true situation in the world is that EU2 suffers from two limiting factors:
1: Navies do not have their true value in EU2, as many of the conquests the Portugese made in Asia, Arabia and Africa were by the strength of their navy. and
2: The lack of the ability to have less organized states in the game (a la Victoria)
The main gripe about underperforming Netherlands/Portugal is a perceptual one. Explorations of America by the English/French/Spanish and Africa/Asia by the Portugese were fundamentally different things. People believe that since English, Spanish and French explorers were a few ships embarking into the unknown, then settlers arrive much later and build up colonies, that the Portugese did the same thing in the opposite direction. This is simply untrue. The Portugese expeditions were enormous fleets of thousands of men, bent on seizing control of the ALREADY EXISTING spice trade through military force. Colonization was the furthest thing from their minds, in the east. The Portugese did colonize, but that was in AMERICA specifically Brazil. Portugal wasn't actually all that much of a colonizer, it was however a canny trading nation with a very ruthless military streak when it came to dominating that trade.
All the wars Portugal engaged in were not wars of colonization, or even conquest, but of a very specific nature: seizing control of all trade in the Indian Ocean.
1: Navies do not have their true value in EU2, as many of the conquests the Portugese made in Asia, Arabia and Africa were by the strength of their navy. and
2: The lack of the ability to have less organized states in the game (a la Victoria)
The main gripe about underperforming Netherlands/Portugal is a perceptual one. Explorations of America by the English/French/Spanish and Africa/Asia by the Portugese were fundamentally different things. People believe that since English, Spanish and French explorers were a few ships embarking into the unknown, then settlers arrive much later and build up colonies, that the Portugese did the same thing in the opposite direction. This is simply untrue. The Portugese expeditions were enormous fleets of thousands of men, bent on seizing control of the ALREADY EXISTING spice trade through military force. Colonization was the furthest thing from their minds, in the east. The Portugese did colonize, but that was in AMERICA specifically Brazil. Portugal wasn't actually all that much of a colonizer, it was however a canny trading nation with a very ruthless military streak when it came to dominating that trade.
All the wars Portugal engaged in were not wars of colonization, or even conquest, but of a very specific nature: seizing control of all trade in the Indian Ocean.
I've seen the opposite of England and Poland/Lithuania, but I agree that Russia is too powerful and the Indonesian minors are ridiculous.Faello said: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...
I REALLY think some of the Indonesian Minors should be removed and a respectable Native American presense should be established in North America again (so that the Europeans can expand more quickly when they colonize there).
The reason why Europeans didn't just do the same thing Spain did in Central America isn't from lack of resources or will. England was just as greedy as Spain was. The reason why is because they couldn't.
In Central and South America, the Spanish COULD conquer full prosperous cities with functioning economies, convert them to catholicism, and milk them without any significant investment in infrastructure. This cannot be said of the Iroquois, who despite having a functional confederacy-based state, simply did not have the infrastructure of a civilization. They COULD have eventually developed one, they by no means lacked any of the neccisary ingredients for one, but they just didn't at the time, nor did one come to exist after European colonization. What did happen was the Iroquois were either assimilated into European colonies or driven off their land. This is exactly what natives do in EU2. As they were a very formidable force, I would personally advise that Iroquois, Cherokee and Hurons have an absolute HORDE of native strength and aggression, that it would take a determined army to defeat them.
In Central and South America, the Spanish COULD conquer full prosperous cities with functioning economies, convert them to catholicism, and milk them without any significant investment in infrastructure. This cannot be said of the Iroquois, who despite having a functional confederacy-based state, simply did not have the infrastructure of a civilization. They COULD have eventually developed one, they by no means lacked any of the neccisary ingredients for one, but they just didn't at the time, nor did one come to exist after European colonization. What did happen was the Iroquois were either assimilated into European colonies or driven off their land. This is exactly what natives do in EU2. As they were a very formidable force, I would personally advise that Iroquois, Cherokee and Hurons have an absolute HORDE of native strength and aggression, that it would take a determined army to defeat them.