-
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.
TommyIlRomano said:
could you please explain what "c/s" means?
thanks in advance
And what the point really? Should be really France penalized for owning its traditional “core” regions of Southern France because of some cultural and linguistic differences with North? Or why should be Aragon or Spain (!!!) be favored for owning these lands??..Mad King James said:
Dutch, German and Nordic division are simply the balance issue, and it works wonderful as its is now. I do not want to see Swedish player/AI feel himself very-well owning Jutland or a Danish one in Svealand. Same with Muster or Braunschweig expanding to the Dutch lands… Then should be give “Low German” to Burgundy then (as soon as Holland, Flanders etc is going to be “low german”)?? Don’t you think it will destroy the in-game balance completely?
Herr Doctor said:
If you "balance" Germany you must also "balance" France. Why penalize various German states for holding their historical cores anymore then you would France?
For instance: If I am playing Bavaria, which I very often do, and the consolidation of the Wittelsbach territories occur in 1777-1779 I will take it in the collective shorts revenue and manpower wise for holding Julich-Berg.
Now considering that those Duchies had been in the hands of the family and being ruled by the exact same guy that inherits the rest of the Wittelsbach territories...where is the logic?
It imposes conditions and hoops that are not representative of real life history for the nations and regions during the time period, and as such has the most spurious of reasons for inclusion in the game; most especially when it comes to Germany and the already present divide in religions!
Using the above example of Julich-Berg and their historic ownership by Bavaria after 1777, if they have a different religion (which happens often enough), as well as the different "culture"; we are talking about a -60% penalty to revenue and manpower to start with, and then you get to add an additional penalty for no land connection to the capital!
This is not "balance" it is artificially hobbling in an attempt to achieve historic outcomes in a venue that can not by its' very nature achieve those outcomes! By having the ability to make alternate choices, have alternate war outcomes, and having the extent of the reformations' reach dynamic rather then static; you have established an environment in which historic outcomes are NOT POSSIBLE.
Rather then expending gob smacking amounts of effort and brain sweat in attempting to use a sledge hammer to pound that which will form naturally in this environment into a shape more akin to the familiar; why not instead expend that effort in the writing of scenarios at keystone points in history?
If the player chooses to play the GC they are by definition not looking to see a replay of world history as they learned it, but rather as they would like it to have played out if they had been in charge of one of the actors in the play. Of course some assumptions will have to be made about events based upon known history, but with the availability of alternate options in the event choices it is easy enough to include a human event that has a "B" choice that says the event makes no sense in the current context and ignore it.
In the case of scenarios we assume that history played out as we know it from school up to the point of the scenario start, and therefore have much more control, and far less worry about how to get to that point in let us say 1795 for the sake of an example, from 1419. Much less cudgeling involved in the early game to get things to go along a path that we would want it it to take in the form of hobbling artificially certain actors which could have the unintended consequence of weakening them to a degree that ahistoric outcomes occur as well. As an example, in the 10-12 games that I have played of mymap I have yet to see Prussia form other then as a Duchy. Brandenberg frequently gets annexed by Poland, Denmark about half the time ends up as an English vassal that about half the time gets diploannexed, and Sweden ends up a four or five province minor due in no small part to many wars with very little manpower and revenue.
Whereas in those same games I see France diploannex Scotland about half the time, invade England and reduce here to a two province minor more then once, more then twice, and absorb the near whole of Italy from the Po to Sicily!
And all before she gets Spain as a vassal. As to Austria? Well most of the time I seem to see them get wiped out en toto or reduced to a few scattered provinces perpetually at war with Hungary and the Turk.
And this is "balance"?
rybka said:
speaking of province ID... where is province 1871? When I used my fix (keyed the Hussite inheritance of ROM as Bavaria then formed BOH, then released Bavaria as a vassal, then going into the save game file and getting rid of the vassalage and returning my army), I noticed that I had picked up a new "core" from Bohemia in the fix: 1871.
No idea where the heck that is, but it is nowhere NEAR Bohemia!
Yet you penalise Austria for holding the Vorlande by your introduction of an artificial Alsatian culture.
Well, you are most welcome to change everything again to crush the balance in game completely (yes, not all games are perfect but in compare to vanilla AGCEEP it’s a great improvement). I am a little interest in the project as of now because there is absolutely no help with remaking the event stuff to get the country setup working effectively (except the endless moaning about cultures and province names). There is so much fantasy and other odd stuff offered for a project last time that I do not even bother to comment it really. So, if MKJ, SL, yarovit, and more important Agung wish to add it, then you can go with anything you see will improve the game without doing any serious work on events stuff…
Has there been any testing as to how well the AI performs in colonising?
I mean, with the insane amount of uncolonised provinces added, it must be nigh impossible to reach historical colonisation results - even for the human player, most likely. I've owned EU2 from the year it came out, so I consider myself a fairly well-versed player, yet even I fall far short of achieving historic results - partly because of the sheer amount of provinces, partly because most natives seem to be quite hostile now.
Also, is there any way to make the permanent terra incognita fog go back to the way it was, or remove it completely? I've gone back to vanilla map when I noticed the vast amount of arbitrary and unneccesairy changes (which will be fixed in due time, though, I am sure) - but that map is now very difficult to play with, as it is covered in MyMap PCI fog...
I mean, with the insane amount of uncolonised provinces added, it must be nigh impossible to reach historical colonisation results - even for the human player, most likely. I've owned EU2 from the year it came out, so I consider myself a fairly well-versed player, yet even I fall far short of achieving historic results - partly because of the sheer amount of provinces, partly because most natives seem to be quite hostile now.
Also, is there any way to make the permanent terra incognita fog go back to the way it was, or remove it completely? I've gone back to vanilla map when I noticed the vast amount of arbitrary and unneccesairy changes (which will be fixed in due time, though, I am sure) - but that map is now very difficult to play with, as it is covered in MyMap PCI fog...
You misunderstood my intent. The point is to give a territory that BOTH Spain and France have cultural claim to (if not political claim, ie cores). This is to solve the Rousillon dilemma for one. Also, there is no reason why someone with Catalan should have cultural problems in southern France, as the cultures are nearly identical in all respects.Herr Doctor said:
pcongre said:could you please explain what "c/s" means?
thanks in advance
co-sign or "I agree".
Well, you was one of those who defended the “legitimacy” conception for the “cultures” iirc. It is quite clear (for me at last) that cultures in MyMap were designed to represent highly this aspect (Flemish, Silesian, Alsatian, Scots etc) not simply the “ability” of one state to rule certain ethnic group (which is kind odd if you agree). From my experience I could say such model helps a lot for a balance, the pure “ethnic”/“linguistic” cultural division would only add some flavor, but to lead to a more unbalanced (and unhistorical) development of countries – that’s what I fear.Mad King James said:
Indeed, there is an option as SL offered before to add Franco-provencal, but also leave Catalan: the South France irl would never accept to be ruled from Madrid (the issue of the French-Catalan relations is a bit other so). But in this case Franco-provencal would not have much sense technically (only if we need to weaken France).
I am defending the legitimacy arguament.
You have to understand that Catalonia was created by France, and was originally the "March of Spain". When the Moslems conquered all the way up to the Pyrenees, they attacked France and lost at the battle of Tours. The French in turn crossed the Pyrenees and established the March. After capturing Barcelona in 801, Charlemagne's son Louis appointed a count to rule the March as well as the newly conquered areas of lower Catalonia from Barcelona, thus creating the County of Barcelona.
The double-conquest of Arab and Frankish (and the double conversion-by-the-sword) severely depopulated the area, and Charlemagne's aprisio system encouraged a lot of immigration from southern France into Catalonia, thus the reason why Catalonia became Occitan speaking.
Thus, even though Barcelona was declared independent in 985, it had tremendous cultural and feudal ties to France, and France has a legitimate cultural, if not political, claim to Catalonia.
You have to understand that Catalonia was created by France, and was originally the "March of Spain". When the Moslems conquered all the way up to the Pyrenees, they attacked France and lost at the battle of Tours. The French in turn crossed the Pyrenees and established the March. After capturing Barcelona in 801, Charlemagne's son Louis appointed a count to rule the March as well as the newly conquered areas of lower Catalonia from Barcelona, thus creating the County of Barcelona.
The double-conquest of Arab and Frankish (and the double conversion-by-the-sword) severely depopulated the area, and Charlemagne's aprisio system encouraged a lot of immigration from southern France into Catalonia, thus the reason why Catalonia became Occitan speaking.
Thus, even though Barcelona was declared independent in 985, it had tremendous cultural and feudal ties to France, and France has a legitimate cultural, if not political, claim to Catalonia.
I don't see how that translates to Spain/Aragon having cultural legitimacy over southern France.
bobtdwarf said:
While I understand the game mechanism that isn't the question I was asking.
I agree with Garbon. As I said Catalan-French relations is the other issue, and it could be justified through some point for France not to have much troubles from owning Catalonia (at last the local elites in the 17th-18th centuries favored the connections with the French Crown much, starting from 1640s rebellion). But Spain having advantages in South France would be really odd.Mad King James said:
And? I am pretty sure that in pre-industrial times which are EU2 about even a German official without any particular knowledge of the local traditions and language could easily execute his duties here wonderfully. The problem is if this official would be of the Spanish Crown (in case of Catalonia) or some odd North German usurper…bobtdwarf said:
It wouldn't be that unbalancing, as core provinces are more important than co-culture provinces.
I'm surprized everyone just glossed over the serious gameplay issue this also solves: the fact that Rousillon considered both France and Aragon wholly legitimate to rule Rousillon.
I'm surprized everyone just glossed over the serious gameplay issue this also solves: the fact that Rousillon considered both France and Aragon wholly legitimate to rule Rousillon.
Why? A revolt risk hardly could be comparable with great MP and taxes “wrong-culture” loss.Mad King James said:
I see. But in this case we would see a loyal Spanish Toulouse or Languedoc. And that’s the main porlem for me at last.Mad King James said: