Notes about 1.06 update

[unmerged(7404)]

After playing EU1 and EU2 I've been very fond of history and right now I'm reading 5 books covering 1400-1800. What I saw when reading the first one were the peace-negotiations. I like the current one with the percent counting but it's one thing that I miss. How long the truce will be. I think that you would be able to negotiate about the truce-length, so when you click on "Offer Peace" there should stand how long the ai nation wanted the truce to be. For example: Ottoman Empire has +49% versus Venice. Venice wants an 8-years truce. Ottoman Empire wants only a 3-years truce (you know why ). Then Ottoman Empire would be able to "use" five percents of its 49 to make it a three-years truce. I. e. 1 percent per each year adjusted.

I've also read Mad King James thread and agree with him but I also think that a weakening of Venice (not it's economic wealth but it's militairy strength), Hungary and the Mameluks is needed.

And when "Treaty of Tordesillas" is over I think the shields of Spain and Portugal should disappear.

Somewhere I read that in patch 1.05 Burgundy would be much more weakened. In my current game (may be an exception) they had doubled there strength with the taking of five provinces of France and three annexations. Still they only had two "enemies" in Europe. All other were friends or neutral. So compared to 1.04 Burgundy seems stronger.

One last thing: The capital of the Tatar-khanate Sibir isn't Tobolsk. Tobolsk was formed after the Russian invasion in 1540-somewhere.

 

[JohnMK]

Originally posted by USA patriot
Then Ottoman Empire would be able to "use" five percents of its 49 to make it a three-years truce. I. e. 1 percent per each year adjusted.

So then all they have to do is request a 100 year truce, the ottomans don't like it and use up all their negotiation % to get it down to 3 years, so venice doesn't have to give up any provinces? I don't know that that's so good.

And when "Treaty of Tordesillas" is over I think the shields of Spain and Portugal should disappear.

Well they do. They still show up visually, but their effect is totally forgotten. So it's no pertinent difference. But yes, I agree, they should totally visually disappear too, as it's greatly confusing to many newbies.

 

[unmerged(7404)]

So then all they have to do is request a 100 year truce, the ottomans don't like it and use up all their negotiation % to get it down to 3 years, so venice doesn't have to give up any provinces? I don't know that that's so good.

Oops. Didn't think of that. But if the maxmimum would be ten years adjustment and ten years request?

 

[JohnMK]

The simplest solution is the best here; just use up your own victory points in requesting a peace. Instead of a normal default 5 year truce, you could request a "Peace In Our Time" that might last 15 years, for an additional 10%.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Except of course that there won't be any changes to the game, only bug fixes

BarristerBoy

 

[JohnMK]

Permit us our dreaming . . .

 

[Castellon]

NO, no dreams allowed
signed: The dream police.

 

[e-stab]

Originally posted by USA patriot

After playing EU1 and EU2 I've been very fond of history and right now I'm reading 5 books covering 1400-1800.

Which ones are you reading? I'm looking for some literature of this subject at the moment.

 

[unmerged(6324)]

Originally posted by USA patriot
Oops. Didn't think of that. But if the maxmimum would be ten years adjustment and ten years request?

Yea that should be the limit IMO as well...

 

[unmerged(6324)]

Originally posted by JohnMK
The simplest solution is the best here; just use up your own victory points in requesting a peace. Instead of a normal default 5 year truce, you could request a "Peace In Our Time" that might last 15 years, for an additional 10%.

Yes that's a good idea too....

 

[unmerged(6324)]

Originally posted by USA patriot
After playing EU1 and EU2 I've been very fond of history and right now I'm reading 5 books covering 1400-1800. What I saw when reading the first one were the peace-negotiations. I like the current one with the percent counting but it's one thing that I miss. How long the truce will be. I think that you would be able to negotiate about the truce-length, so when you click on "Offer Peace" there should stand how long the ai nation wanted the truce to be. For example: Ottoman Empire has +49% versus Venice. Venice wants an 8-years truce. Ottoman Empire wants only a 3-years truce (you know why ). Then Ottoman Empire would be able to "use" five percents of its 49 to make it a three-years truce. I. e. 1 percent per each year adjusted.

I've also read Mad King James thread and agree with him but I also think that a weakening of Venice (not it's economic wealth but it's militairy strength), Hungary and the Mameluks is needed.

And when "Treaty of Tordesillas" is over I think the shields of Spain and Portugal should disappear.

Somewhere I read that in patch 1.05 Burgundy would be much more weakened. In my current game (may be an exception) they had doubled there strength with the taking of five provinces of France and three annexations. Still they only had two "enemies" in Europe. All other were friends or neutral. So compared to 1.04 Burgundy seems stronger.

One last thing: The capital of the Tatar-khanate Sibir isn't Tobolsk. Tobolsk was formed after the Russian invasion in 1540-somewhere.

Very good suggestions IMO my friend. I agree with everything you suggested but the Burgundy thing. I have been playing 1.05 now for some time and have seen Burgundy living up to its historical expectations, except maybe if its gained up on (which sometimes occurs BTW), but never as you described it.

 

[Carolus Rex]

Nowadays Burgundy does crap in my games.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

If one of the goals of 1.05 was to make Burgundy weaker, it's working, in my game she's been kicked around left and right (even by Savoy, who took Franche-Comté and Holland) and it's fighting for her life in 1475...

 

[sirbruce]

I must say that playing EU II has educated me more on world history than I ever got out of High School. We never learned much about countries like Trebazond, Burgundy, Lothringen, Saxony, etc. It was just the Romans, and then Charlamagne, and then after that all we learned about were the major countries (England, France, Spain, Austria).

Bruce

 

[unmerged(6324)]

Originally posted by sirbruce
I must say that playing EU II has educated me more on world history than I ever got out of High School. We never learned much about countries like Trebazond, Burgundy, Lothringen, Saxony, etc. It was just the Romans, and then Charlamagne, and then after that all we learned about were the major countries (England, France, Spain, Austria).

Bruce

That's right same here!

 

[unmerged(9596)]

History Lessons

Originally posted by sirbruce
I must say that playing EU II has educated me more on world history than I ever got out of High School. We never learned much about countries like Trebazond, Burgundy, Lothringen, Saxony, etc. It was just the Romans, and then Charlamagne, and then after that all we learned about were the major countries (England, France, Spain, Austria).

Bruce

Surely you are not suggesting that there may be holes in our school curriculums? The Horror. What about all that time spent studying ancient African civilizations or the rise of the Abbasids ...

OK, maybe we're just alittle Euro-centric. (In my school, we didn't even do more than mention Constantinople in passing .....)

 

[Lucidor]

Originally posted by Pirate Scum
If one of the goals of 1.05 was to make Burgundy weaker, it's working, in my game she's been kicked around left and right (even by Savoy, who took Alsace and Holland) and it's fighting for her life in 1475...

In my Osman game I see Ragusa owning a province at the English channel.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Re: History Lessons

Originally posted by Geoffrey



Surely you are not suggesting that there may be holes in our school curriculums? The Horror. What about all that time spent studying ancient African civilizations or the rise of the Abbasids ...

OK, maybe we're just alittle Euro-centric. (In my school, we didn't even do more than mention Constantinople in passing .....)

Back in my school days history went from the Egyptians, to the Romans, to the English (in about 3 days) and then to Canada (where nothing much happened).

BarristerBoy

 

[sirbruce]

Well, World History was a fun class, but it was taught by a football coach and it was something of a "jocks class", so it was pretty dumbed down to start with.

But we did talk about the different cradles of civilizations, Mesopotamia, etc. And then it was primarily Egypt, Greece, Rome, Charlamagne, and then the major countries in that order. We certainly did talk about the Hundred Years War, the Thirty Years War, etc. and some of the succession issues with Austria, Spain, England, and so on. And the Ottomans were certainly there, but we didn't go into detail about those heathens or the other pagan nations.

China and Japan and the American indians in North, Central, and South America got some minor lipservice, but nothing much. Mughal Empire? Sibir? Never heard of them. Even Poland and Russia got very little coverage. (Poland-Lithuania just became this big area on the map that wasn't important until WW1.)

Anyway, obviously in a high school cirriculum you can't cover every minor country, but I think improvements could be made in understanding the background and dynamic of each country rather than focusing on just the major events.

Bruce

 

[unmerged(6324)]

Originally posted by sirbruce
Well, World History was a fun class, but it was taught by a football coach and it was something of a "jocks class", so it was pretty dumbed down to start with.

But we did talk about the different cradles of civilizations, Mesopotamia, etc. And then it was primarily Egypt, Greece, Rome, Charlamagne, and then the major countries in that order. We certainly did talk about the Hundred Years War, the Thirty Years War, etc. and some of the succession issues with Austria, Spain, England, and so on. And the Ottomans were certainly there, but we didn't go into detail about those heathens or the other pagan nations.

China and Japan and the American indians in North, Central, and South America got some minor lipservice, but nothing much. Mughal Empire? Sibir? Never heard of them. Even Poland and Russia got very little coverage. (Poland-Lithuania just became this big area on the map that wasn't important until WW1.)

Anyway, obviously in a high school cirriculum you can't cover every minor country, but I think improvements could be made in understanding the background and dynamic of each country rather than focusing on just the major events.

Bruce

I definately agree, especially with the Poland and Russian parts! Actually I never heard of the Mughal Empire until I played EU, and China and Japan had little to no covereage in our curriculum and its supposed to be the best in the nation (yeah right). In any case I sincerly thank this game and EU1 as well for getting me interested and other nations, minor ones, and major ones, now I study every day on my own enthustiastically learning new things about all these nations in the game, fascinating history is!