-
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.
True, and I will probably reduce infrastructure for both Poland and Russia in the next release. Russia, however, is not the topic of discussion: Ottoman event choices are.
Only 200d/month - a mere pittance.
Is that including further technological advances?
Possibly Sweden is not? Depending on how you evalutate the early rape of Skåne, I guess. England - doing slightly less well, I think. France - the verdict is out on this one.
The point is that that is neither here nor there. It was decided that certain nations have certain historical action choices forced to better simulate their nation and to handicap them, and an appeal based on not having done better than historical for reversing the rule strikes me as completely nuts.
However, if that is the requirement for you continuing to play, I may have to reevalute my stance for the common good.
PS: If you feel that Russia is too strong and should be constrained by a historical event choice, feel free to suggest one. You are also free to suggest one in the past in which I chose ahistorically, where you think I should have chosen historically to handicap Russia. My ahistorical choices until now are: Sacking of Moscow (b), Church Independent of Constantinople (b), Time of Troubles (b).
Last edited:
Perhaps you should do something with Portugal too. Something more than we already changed for Mach 2 even. Although I am not sure what, since knowing COTs location you can't change, and that's the most important.
I wouldn't use the term "powerfull" when talking about Portugal
. Perhaps too rich, but only comparing to other countries in Machiavelli 2, and I would say it has more to do with their underachievements than with Portugal being something special. Look at Holland for example: she is doing really good... At least England should have by now also started trading in Asian COTs.I also didn't complain at all when two techs were lowered by a level and when culture and religion of two (?) colonies were changed.
That's a sepparate issue
Now PTC has AT LEAST 5 merchants in every COT except Minessota and two Russian COTs. With Minessota and Astrakhan we can't do much till 1650, when map trading becommes allowed, and we hope we will settle the issue of Russian trade embargo that influences the situation in Moscow.
Originally posted by Barnius
Nice AAR Lord_Robertus! Easy to read and straghtforward
What can I say? I am out of work at the mo, so have too much time on my hands.
The propaganda machine's comments are always welcome... now if only his money was as forthcoming as his praise...
Originally posted by Hive
Exactly. Just look at the number of posts this morning alone...
Oh btw, I unknowingly broke your "no galleys outside certain waters" rule...
Perhaps you can edit them to a lower number of warships instead?
Oh, and in case you wonder why I built galleys: Mulliman says they are good in home waters, they are cheap and they make the navy look big...
Clarification on the three province rule so everyone understands it:
An *alliance* can take upto three provinces in a war if they score a major victory. Two colonies (which are any province under 5000 pop) count as one province for calculating this. ie you could take 3 provinces, or 6 colonies or any combination there of. TP's and unfinished colonies (ie under 1000 people) do not count.
The rule applies against all nations except pagans which can be annexed outright, not that I think there are any pagans left by now
.Now this doesn't mean it's your god given right to take three provinces if you win as I get the feeling some people think
The two English/French victories for example only demanded two provinces in one war and 1 province + 2 unfinished colonies (which don't count anyway) in the other despite scoring major victories both times and being able to demand more by the war score at the time. The key thing is that taking your fully allotment is a major major victory and should happen rarely and probably only when the loser is being excessively stubborn about a more reasonable peace, for as is said elsewhere on the rules page, we want to have more limited wars in this game not mass brawls [edit - and not total wars] . This isn't something one can impose though, it requires everyone to take a responsibility in seeing it happen and seeing it played this way.I get the feeling for example that the Netherlands wouldn't dare attack Portuguese colonies because she'd fear Austria and Spain getting involved, but if the war is make clear it's over some portuguese turf then that shouldn't happen. Another example, take Munster. Netherlands attacked this Princedom (silly move but hey) Austria dow'd to force them out which was quite in character. But then taking the war to a total war against France who wasn't involved in the Munster fiasco was totally out of character. In this example, if they had an issue with France, then they should have DOW'ed France. Hopefully you all get the picture and understand the distinction I'm trying to draw. It's impossible to rule on something like this in game especially when it's done against me, you all saw the problems I encountered just enforcing the 3 province rule which everyone should have been aware of, so I rely on people to play to the spirit of what we're trying to achieve here and not try and bend the rules or even break them to their best advantage.
Last edited:
Originally posted by Barnius
It is quite possible I am not roleplaying Portugal too good. I mean, I am doing what I would do with any other nation: go for trade and economy.
So I don't really always base my actions on "what monarch of the time would do". Even when monarch is leading a war, it is usually for the benefit of the economy
But perhaps RP doesn't need to be so constricted, so tied up to a monarch... Portuguese RP is more tied to Dukes of Licboa and PTC, meaning trade and colonisation. And THAT I will defend by all means
Barnius, I think your RP is just fine in this game and your AAR's are very enjoyable as is your banter. Sure it might not be historical Portugal and wouldn't work for anyone else but for you it works and makes for a better game. I expect everyone by now awaits the latest PTC trading report with anticipation
.
Thanks for hosting the file Jarkko, I just finished a 12 hour day about an hour ago and am pooped out. Hopefully I won't have too many more like that one for a bit!
EVERYONE wants our money, and look what we get for it! NOTHING! Only a bit of fun fighting English navy
But in the end we LOST MONEY, which is inexcusable
Some calculation on Japan issue.
Assuming I did it all by the book, instead of having Shikoku, Kansai, Kanto, Tohoku and Ezochi from 1602 and Kyushu from 1608, it would have been:
- Shikoku, Kansai, Kanto from 1601
- Tohoku, Ezochi added 1607
- Kyushu added 1613
So Portugal collected undeserved income for 5 years from Tohoku, Ezochi and Kyushu, but didn't collect 1 year income from Shikoku, Kansai and Kanto.
Let's be conservative to punnish Portugal for not paying attention on the rules, so let's say stability was +2 and let's use 1622 numbers of income at stablilty +2 (thus disregarding RR which made income actually lower).
Yearly incomes are: Kyushu 77, Shikoku 26, Kansai 32, Kanto 22, Tohoku 20, Ezochi 15.
Portuguese treasury should have (77+20+15)*5-(26+32+22)*1=480 d less money.
I already explained how STUPIDLY Japan gave PTC a CB for war, so no need to do anything regarding stability.
+1 BB should be added for one more DOW needed.
OOC: Provoking CB like that could perhaps look gamey, but Portugal doesn't have other "sources" of CB, like some other powers. So we are actually LOOKING FORWARD to see for example England or Holand embargoing us:rofl:
Assuming I did it all by the book, instead of having Shikoku, Kansai, Kanto, Tohoku and Ezochi from 1602 and Kyushu from 1608, it would have been:
- Shikoku, Kansai, Kanto from 1601
- Tohoku, Ezochi added 1607
- Kyushu added 1613
So Portugal collected undeserved income for 5 years from Tohoku, Ezochi and Kyushu, but didn't collect 1 year income from Shikoku, Kansai and Kanto.
Let's be conservative to punnish Portugal for not paying attention on the rules, so let's say stability was +2 and let's use 1622 numbers of income at stablilty +2 (thus disregarding RR which made income actually lower).
Yearly incomes are: Kyushu 77, Shikoku 26, Kansai 32, Kanto 22, Tohoku 20, Ezochi 15.
Portuguese treasury should have (77+20+15)*5-(26+32+22)*1=480 d less money.
I already explained how STUPIDLY Japan gave PTC a CB for war, so no need to do anything regarding stability.
+1 BB should be added for one more DOW needed.
OOC: Provoking CB like that could perhaps look gamey, but Portugal doesn't have other "sources" of CB, like some other powers. So we are actually LOOKING FORWARD to see for example England or Holand embargoing us
:rofl:
Last edited:
I agree, actually. I just found it amusing that PJL converted all these states to catholic, and only then were they annexed. Like a double BB hit there.
They were supposed to have lost it. But the event didn't fire correctly, since it removes a cot in MECKLEMBURG, not in Sjaelland.
Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
You will have to declare war on Russia to get into the Siberian corridor from either side, Barnius, for you sure as hell are not getting military access. One nation, and one nation only, has been given military access into Russia, and that nation was Poland in connection with the Polish heir's ascendancy during the time of troubles, and even that extraordinary access is fairly likely to be canceled with no hard feelings some time soon.
The Tsar Mikhail I Romanov says: Only Russian soldiers on Russian soil!
(And on other peoples' soil, occasionally
Poland admits that it was somewhat tempting to send a 2000 cavalry army under a 5 0 0 1 conquistador on a daring trek into the siberian corridor, yet having remembered how incredibly annoying such a betrayal is, it thought better of it and vowed to always protect Russia's sacrosant access to that corridor.
I know the feeling
France has the benefit of military access to Portuguese territory since that misfortunate civil war.
Austria got it for a bit of exploration of African coast. Uncolonised west African coast I assumed, so only to pass those few Portuguese TPs...
Little did we hope to see their conquistadors happily marching TOGEATHER through Zimbabwe mountains
But what could have little Portugal done against that? Very little at the moment, but we don't look kindly upon that