A very good idea, Katsyev. This is something I plan to implement in my own mods. The only question is when this event should fire?
Cheers.
-
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.
A very good idea, Katsyev. This is something I plan to implement in my own mods. The only question is when this event should fire?
Cheers.
Very good question, I don't play GC a whole lot, so I don't really know the Polish events. Anyone can help us out with this one?
Re: where did u make this up?
I promise to next email, if it will be here, i will response in private.
Yup. Of course, so called "proper Ukraine", that is Kiev etc. As I say, after UoL Ukraine got _huge_ boost. Really, _whole villages_ were almost empited in Poland proper. If you see into demographic data then you will see that population of Ukraine doubled or tripled, i would have to look into my books to be sure. Of course not all settlers were "Polish" per se, they were coming however from kingdom of Poland - from Masovia, Little Poland, Red Rus. In that time "Pole" meant "noble", no matter of his ethinicity. And cossacks of course served in Polish army under Polish commanders. Never heard about "registered" Cossacks?
Well, no.
agreed here. All earlier uprising by Cossacks were unsuccesful mainly because they were just rebellions by bunch of criminals (sorry, but that's how it looks from Government side: not Polish, government's). In 1648 however it slowly became national uprising: very slowly, since initially Chmielnicki just wanted more ritghs and don't want separation from Poland. Most historians argue that up to Beresteczko it was essentially civl war.
Well, a lot of Cossacks fought under Polish banners. After all, why the battles at Zolte Wody and Korsun were lost? Because half of Polish army deserted and joined Cossacks. But yet even at Pilawce (sp?) one of few units which didn't escaped were senator Kisiel's Ruthenian bander (Kisiel was last Ruthenian Orthodox senator in Polish parliament)
Well finally it did get destroyed. But it took some time, because Poland in that time fought with Russia, Sweden, Rakoczy and Brandenburg.
And that's why Polish hussars had to charge and Kara Mustafa was killed when he returned to home. Huh.
I guess you don't know history. or you were learning it from some silly books were Poles were oppressors and Ukrainians fiercely oppose them, while for most of history it was Ukrainian-Polish cooperation and wars between nobles and peasants. (But when Ukrainian nobles started to use Polish lanugage it became more national conflict: it's itneresting that most cruel magnates were in origin Ruthenian, e.g. Wisniowiecki who had no drop of Polish blood in his veins.).
Also you seem to forget that Cossacks then again in 1660 were helping Poland in wars against Russia, and that in union in Hadziacz we almost succed in creating Republic of Three Nations: but then, it was at least decade or two too late. But again, probably in Russian or Ukrainian history books you don't learn about union of Hadziacz, because it was after that agreement between Russia and Chmielnicki, so it didn't suit official theory of "Poles-oppressors, Russian-brothers"
I promise to next email, if it will be here, i will response in private.
Yup. Of course, so called "proper Ukraine", that is Kiev etc. As I say, after UoL Ukraine got _huge_ boost. Really, _whole villages_ were almost empited in Poland proper. If you see into demographic data then you will see that population of Ukraine doubled or tripled, i would have to look into my books to be sure. Of course not all settlers were "Polish" per se, they were coming however from kingdom of Poland - from Masovia, Little Poland, Red Rus. In that time "Pole" meant "noble", no matter of his ethinicity. And cossacks of course served in Polish army under Polish commanders. Never heard about "registered" Cossacks?
Well, no.
Well, no. Western Ukraine (Halicz, Galicja) was inherited by Casimir the Great, although that is doubted by Ukrainian historians (indeed, there are fundaments to doubts). Eastern part was given to Poland by last Lithuanian duke, who happened also to be Polish king (remember? "Why do you want have union with us if we are given." and arguments from Polish site "what are you affraid of? There are still powerful Ruthenian family in Poland"...)
agreed here. All earlier uprising by Cossacks were unsuccesful mainly because they were just rebellions by bunch of criminals (sorry, but that's how it looks from Government side: not Polish, government's). In 1648 however it slowly became national uprising: very slowly, since initially Chmielnicki just wanted more ritghs and don't want separation from Poland. Most historians argue that up to Beresteczko it was essentially civl war.
Well, a lot of Cossacks fought under Polish banners. After all, why the battles at Zolte Wody and Korsun were lost? Because half of Polish army deserted and joined Cossacks. But yet even at Pilawce (sp?) one of few units which didn't escaped were senator Kisiel's Ruthenian bander (Kisiel was last Ruthenian Orthodox senator in Polish parliament)
Well finally it did get destroyed. But it took some time, because Poland in that time fought with Russia, Sweden, Rakoczy and Brandenburg.
Hem, i guess you forgot that most of that population was Ukrainian. 30% of dead in Deluge is about _all_ losses, from _all_ wars.
And that's why Polish hussars had to charge and Kara Mustafa was killed when he returned to home. Huh.
I guess you don't know history. or you were learning it from some silly books were Poles were oppressors and Ukrainians fiercely oppose them, while for most of history it was Ukrainian-Polish cooperation and wars between nobles and peasants. (But when Ukrainian nobles started to use Polish lanugage it became more national conflict: it's itneresting that most cruel magnates were in origin Ruthenian, e.g. Wisniowiecki who had no drop of Polish blood in his veins.).
Also you seem to forget that Cossacks then again in 1660 were helping Poland in wars against Russia, and that in union in Hadziacz we almost succed in creating Republic of Three Nations: but then, it was at least decade or two too late. But again, probably in Russian or Ukrainian history books you don't learn about union of Hadziacz, because it was after that agreement between Russia and Chmielnicki, so it didn't suit official theory of "Poles-oppressors, Russian-brothers"
I agree. That's why I will never seriously propose these cuts to be added into official game. It's good that these vents woulf be country tied. All that would be needed are four diffeent setups for Poland, Lithuania, Crimea and Russia to populate Ukraine.
But we are discussing mod matters there
.
Events (like unions, elections of Jagiellons for both throns, other)between Poland and Lithuania that can be treated like vassalship: 1385, 1399, 1401, 1413, 1435, 1440, 1447, 1499, 1501, 1506, 1529, 1569.
It would certainly be easier to add the vassalization command to an existing event rather than creating a new event to do the job. I'll have to look over the polish files to make a decision. One problem: If I leave the vassalization until too late, there is every possibility that lithuania will diploannex the Poles.
I've just listed possible dates. I don't recall which events are in official version which in mods, so I don't say you know to which you can add vassal command.
Considering a few of the dates are prior to Eu2 time period, we could probably just start them off as a Polish vassal, and therefore save us from event modifications.
I think what we have seen happen to Poland in Tsunami is a pretty definitive arguement for Poland's incredible weakness prior to the first efforts of balancing. Her current state is yet too untested to make any judgements on how she is coming along. I will however be following her progress in the current DoN2 game quite closely.
I'm hoping we've reached a final agreement as for additions to Poland's core list with UoL, namely Poltava and Krementjug. Many other provinces certainly quality for core-status, but for various reasons will be left out at the present time. I'm really hoping to see the change to this event implemented, there is absolutley no reason why Poland shouldn't have cores on these two provinces.
As for Lithuania being vassalized to Poland in the GC. It seems we haven't had any fresh input on this lately. The easiest implementation of course would be to have Lithuania vassalized to Poland from day 1 in 1419, this would also help us prevent the much too common, Lithuania diplo-annexing Poland. More input on this though would definitely be appreciated.
Now that we have the "removecot" command, ideas for event changes to move the Kurland CoT to Danzig sometime in the 1419-1492 timeframe would be greatly appreciated as well. I really doubt anyone could come up with any real good reasons why this shouldn't happen, while i'm sure a ton of great arguements could be made for why this should happen.
Anyway, I felt an update here was definitely needed, as things are changing pretty quickly with the introduction of the latest betas.
I'm hoping we've reached a final agreement as for additions to Poland's core list with UoL, namely Poltava and Krementjug. Many other provinces certainly quality for core-status, but for various reasons will be left out at the present time. I'm really hoping to see the change to this event implemented, there is absolutley no reason why Poland shouldn't have cores on these two provinces.
As for Lithuania being vassalized to Poland in the GC. It seems we haven't had any fresh input on this lately. The easiest implementation of course would be to have Lithuania vassalized to Poland from day 1 in 1419, this would also help us prevent the much too common, Lithuania diplo-annexing Poland. More input on this though would definitely be appreciated.
Now that we have the "removecot" command, ideas for event changes to move the Kurland CoT to Danzig sometime in the 1419-1492 timeframe would be greatly appreciated as well. I really doubt anyone could come up with any real good reasons why this shouldn't happen, while i'm sure a ton of great arguements could be made for why this should happen.
Anyway, I felt an update here was definitely needed, as things are changing pretty quickly with the introduction of the latest betas.
First of all people of this community must decide which one is more preferable?Being historical or gameplay?
I will go for the historical and my argument will be basically based on this.
To be general, in the game it seems the luckiest country in the victory competition is France with its immense manpower and land tech.
Poland have some difficulties in the gameplay; it is the absolute truth and some of you like to support a change in this with the historical context.
Well I say Poland was truly a world power until 17th century but it was not alone. Hungary was too best known with her cavalry and was a very powerful country too. In fact Ottoman Empire was more than lucky to vassalize Hungary.
We can add other countries on the "unfairly treated countries by the game engine" list.
The point is if we are about to change things in order to obtain a better historical view on Europe in this era, where should we start to "fix" so to speak?
Poland went to decline because of its internal affairs and eventually her neighbours shared the provinces among them, this is solid history.
On the other hand, Ottoman Empire went to decline due to poor administration, civil wars in the mainland of Anatolia where most of the turkish army were recruited, and especially a crusade of all Christian countries including Russia Venice Austria mainly against Ottomans. That league was formed because of the second siege of Vienna by the Ottomans and the failure of Ottomans gave the Christians hope and motive to form an alliance against the devil threatening the very existence of Christianity.After 17 years of war Ottomans lost the war and that was the first in their history since Murad II.After that in the 18th century Ottomans went truly to decline. Until that time Ottomans were the superior land power in the Europe and a remarkable power in the Mediterrian Sea too. In fact until the during the age of exploration Spain (not France nor England) and Ottoman Empire were the superior sea powers.
As you can see Ottomans were far more superior in the military technologies than the Europeans in 16th century.In the 17th century European main powers catched up with Ottomans but with its immense manpower Ottomans were able to defeat them in one to one wars. At the end they were defeated only by a coalition of these main powers as I said before.
So,if you are comparing Poland with Ottoman Empire, I would advise you not to overestimate Poland but not underestimate too. Poland was superior to her neighbours at that era but Ottomans were superior to every european country.
As a proof I would give the Preveze battle in the meditarrian sea between Ottomans and Spain's coalition, and peace agreement between Ottomans and Holy Roman Empire which put the emperor diplomatically same with the sadr-azam (chancellor,prime minister) of the Ottomans both events were during the age of Suleyman I.
In the end, I suggest a sort of tech improvement both for Ottomans and Poles but more for the Ottomans for the historical context that was upheld so high by our community.
With best regards and wishes for ease to read my little ranting
I will go for the historical and my argument will be basically based on this.
To be general, in the game it seems the luckiest country in the victory competition is France with its immense manpower and land tech.
Poland have some difficulties in the gameplay; it is the absolute truth and some of you like to support a change in this with the historical context.
Well I say Poland was truly a world power until 17th century but it was not alone. Hungary was too best known with her cavalry and was a very powerful country too. In fact Ottoman Empire was more than lucky to vassalize Hungary.
We can add other countries on the "unfairly treated countries by the game engine" list.
The point is if we are about to change things in order to obtain a better historical view on Europe in this era, where should we start to "fix" so to speak?
Poland went to decline because of its internal affairs and eventually her neighbours shared the provinces among them, this is solid history.
On the other hand, Ottoman Empire went to decline due to poor administration, civil wars in the mainland of Anatolia where most of the turkish army were recruited, and especially a crusade of all Christian countries including Russia Venice Austria mainly against Ottomans. That league was formed because of the second siege of Vienna by the Ottomans and the failure of Ottomans gave the Christians hope and motive to form an alliance against the devil threatening the very existence of Christianity.After 17 years of war Ottomans lost the war and that was the first in their history since Murad II.After that in the 18th century Ottomans went truly to decline. Until that time Ottomans were the superior land power in the Europe and a remarkable power in the Mediterrian Sea too. In fact until the during the age of exploration Spain (not France nor England) and Ottoman Empire were the superior sea powers.
As you can see Ottomans were far more superior in the military technologies than the Europeans in 16th century.In the 17th century European main powers catched up with Ottomans but with its immense manpower Ottomans were able to defeat them in one to one wars. At the end they were defeated only by a coalition of these main powers as I said before.
So,if you are comparing Poland with Ottoman Empire, I would advise you not to overestimate Poland but not underestimate too. Poland was superior to her neighbours at that era but Ottomans were superior to every european country.
As a proof I would give the Preveze battle in the meditarrian sea between Ottomans and Spain's coalition, and peace agreement between Ottomans and Holy Roman Empire which put the emperor diplomatically same with the sadr-azam (chancellor,prime minister) of the Ottomans both events were during the age of Suleyman I.
In the end, I suggest a sort of tech improvement both for Ottomans and Poles but more for the Ottomans for the historical context that was upheld so high by our community.
With best regards and wishes for ease to read my little ranting
Uhmm. I think not. The Polish decline in the Tsunami game has been aided and abetted by the different human players' slider changes.
I briefly took control of Poland in the Tsunami game yesterday and played 1623-1637. Starting dp-settings were 10/0/7/9/4/10/9/9. Apart from the innovativeness, which was much appreciated, it seems that the previous players have been consciously aiming for minimal income (actually, they have been going for cheap armies, but the result is the same: non-competitive merchants and negligible production and trade tax income, which makes tech development take ages, further slowing down the growth of the economy). While the Polish events sure help this development, it takes real effort on the player's part to make them this bad.
If the player aims for dp-settings that would be Timur Lenkh's wet dream, he has only himself to blame for ruining his economy.
Well, the point about the game being "historical" basically has severla POV's.
Does being "historical" mean that every single nation should have the strengths and weaknesses they had historically?
Or does being "historical" mean that the game should play out mostly like it did IRL?
Does being "historical" mean that every single nation should have the strengths and weaknesses they had historically?
Or does being "historical" mean that the game should play out mostly like it did IRL?
When I used the word "historical", I meant "of the history".
Yes, in my opinion, every nation should have the strengths and ,weaknesses they had "historically", just like you said.
Otherwise the game will be no different from other similar games like civilization and total war.
It is the events monarchs leaders your region your destiny your allies your enemies, which has been set, that give us the taste
, don't you agree?
Did you ever think as you play England if you had a casus belli on Denmark how would the game change?or think of a better one,more specific and stupid one, Aragon and Castille have CB on eachother;what will Spain be like?
If the supporters of Poland's land tech improvement would agree on the second choice I must say their only argument is lost, since they believe Poland is weak which was supposed to be powerful "historically".
Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
Uhmm. I think not. The Polish decline in the Tsunami game has been aided and abetted by the different human players' slider changes.
I briefly took control of Poland in the Tsunami game yesterday and played 1623-1637. Starting dp-settings were 10/0/7/9/4/10/9/9. Apart from the innovativeness, which was much appreciated, it seems that the previous players have been consciously aiming for minimal income (actually, they have been going for cheap armies, but the result is the same: non-competitive merchants and negligible production and trade tax income, which makes tech development take ages, further slowing down the growth of the economy). While the Polish events sure help this development, it takes real effort on the player's part to make them this bad.
If the player aims for dp-settings that would be Timur Lenkh's wet dream, he has only himself to blame for ruining his economy.
Definitely their downfall was based upon what happened to them in play, and Poland is no country for one to play who isn't ready to fight for every little thing he gets. However, Tsunami showed that Poland simply isn't strong enough to withstand the normal player warmonger abuse of incredibly tunnel vision slider positions. Poland must be innovative, and you have to fight the centralization loss as much as you can, otherwise you'll be in the stone age soon and your production will be laughable. However, centralization doesen't come cheaply, and if you even want to get it to a reasonable 5 or 6, you are going to use just about all your dp changes for the first 100 years or so, which is completely neglecting all other areas. Sometimes you get lucky, but most often times you don't, and you get centralizaton lessening random events as well, which you can fight, but sometimes can't always afford to fight.
I agree with you, Poland's preformance in Tsunami was definitely influenced largely by how she was played. The player that began with her however did actually start doing rather okay, but getting embroiled with the French wars, losing all of the Russian lands to Russia, and then having the Ukraine stripped away, crippled her greatly. The weakness that I point to with it, is simply that even if she is played wonderfully, the chances of her becoming the great power of the east, that she is supposed to become, are pretty minimal, and she has a much easier time (as we have witnessed) of becoming the donator of lands to her hungry neighbors. France and Austria can lose a war and survive, they can absorb land loss and set backs and still have the opportunity to regain their former power, Poland lacks this margin of error. She must play splendidly and have good luck to even survive in a position of strength near to where she is supposed to... Otherwise, well, we saw what happens otherwise.
Also, what happened in Tsunami.. did Austria ever attack you? I was reading your AAR post about it, you were telling a great story, and then it just stops... Did the game stop, or did Russia and Austria invade?
Answer to #1: Yes, or else we'd be playing the Red country, or the Orange country and not Russia or Poland.
Answer to #2: I believe the game should gravitate toward what happened historically more often than not. Not copy history however, and not all the time.
As far as my thoughts on why Poland should be made stronger. I want to see Poland have the ability to reach something near her historical strength, most of the time. As it stood pre-balancing, it took an exceptional player, with great luck, and maybe even a bit of bungling on the part of his neighbors to remain strong at all, for any amount of time. Its a bit hard to tell so early how the recent changes have effected this, which is why i've held off any persuing of additional balancing aside from continuing what i've been doing before.
A) Having Poltava and Krementjug added to Polish core list with UoL event, however this isn't as much of balancing as it is correcting an error.
B) Having Lithuania vassalized to Poland at the beginning of, or sometime during the 1419 - 1492 time period. The best option in my opinion is to have Lithuania vassalized from day one.
C) Having the Baltic CoT in Kurland removed and replaced by a Danzig CoT sometime during the 1419 - 1492 time period.
That's it, and as you'll notice A is simply to add core consistency between the various scenarios, which all see Poltava and Krementjug as Polish or Lithuanian cores, however for some odd reason they were left out of UoL.
B and C are simply there to help GC Poland to the starting point of the 1492 scenario, which is currently impossible without some serious warmongering to accomplish, and C is impossible. Poland is too small to vassalize Lithuania by normal means, and Kurland cannot through game play be moved to Danzig, as it should. Hardly unreasonable or unbalancing items i'm asking for here and I believe I have general support in these goals.
As far as the Ottomans go, I don't think they need any tech help whatsoever these days. They got a huge boost with the lessening of the effects of Orthodox tech group and have the wealth to keep within a level or two of their European counter-parts. As far as the Ottoman Army historically, at the opening of the game, yes they were advanced compared to their enemies. However their true strength lie in the quality, number, and morale of their troops. This continued on, however their actual "technology" wasn't always the best, but they made up for it during later years through quality, number, and morale until the point that their technology and tactics were beginning to lag considerably they were very powerful, however as far as military innovations go, I wouldn't list them among the top. I think their tech group is quite appropriate.
I would mostly agree but that doesn't change the fact that from their beginning till 1683 Ottoman stood alone against the alliance of many countries and won mostly all the time. In the game you can not possibly achieve such power without superior tech level regardless of your quality or manpower or income. That is my point.
Remove number, add good commanders and tactics and IMHO this would be more or less valid for PL army.
and that's another thing.Originally posted by Woreczko
Remove number, add good commanders and tactics and IMHO this would be more or less valid for PL army.
For Example in Mohacz 1526 Ottoman anhililated the Hungarian army very fast thanks to their tactics. Their tactics was called wolftrap. When they surrounded enemy they would let a gap in their ranks to let the enemy retreat from there since if the enemy army doesn't have a chance to retreat, the enemy army will fight better to survive.That was what Ottomans did in Mohacz.At the end elite cavalry along with the king was terminated in the swamps.
The Ottoman commanders were exceptional soldiers and their decisions were undiscussable.
Originally posted by Woreczko
Remove number, add good commanders and tactics and IMHO this would be more or less valid for PL army.
Aside from wide use of paper cartridges, innovations in the field or rocketry before any of the western powers considered them useful, horse artillery, artillery doctrines that formed the basis for the Swedish tactics later on that won the Swedes such great victories, the use of smaller more firm command types that could disperse easily to better live off the land and effectively come together at their destination, on and on and on.
Also, the Ottomans lost the ability to compete militarily in the latter years of the time period. The Polish never came to this point, technology-wise even if not at the lead anymore, they were still on par, however the nobles simply didn't allow the manpower (and later on there wasn't enough manpower period) to combat her enemies effectively. Poland's eventual demise was not due to military failure or lack of technology and/or tactics.
I don't have a time to participate in this discussion, but I think I could start another one As we already have the latin techgroup, maybe we (you ) should start to fight for CoT in Danzing (and removing that one in Curland). So, round one - fight!
As we already have the latin techgroup, maybe we (you ) should start to fight for CoT in Danzing (and removing that one in Curland). So, round one - fight!