Danish Propaganda! Reeeeeeeeeeeeeee!Whatever floats your Vasa.
- 3
- 1
Portugal 1.30 National Ideas Overhaul and feedback
- Thread starter Sete
- Start date
-
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.
I dont know where everyone is so hung up on the Military ideas.
I literally just added 10% combat ability on my first suggestion which can simulate a lot of things, from bush warfare, to marksmanship.
Portugal had a trade Empire yes, but it fought to keep it. Mamluks, Ottomans, Spanish, Dutch, several Asian and African powers.
I could also change the mercenary maintenance for +1 attrition and it would still be in line historically.
Having the artillery and forts defense (which is the 7th idea already) earlier, just plays into what was the Portuguese global expansion strategy.
Obviously the Estate for the proposed order of christ should have drawbacks commercially due to zealous captains (check Vasco da Gama and his issue with the Cochim of Calicute).
Also the AI should not take Expansion as an idea, and I would propose unlocking the new world later on the Exploration tree.
That would help tackle the issue of Portugal painting green north and south america.
Last edited:
- 1
Partly because some of us are tired of every nation getting military bonuses in its ideas, and very tired of people talking as if nations need military ideas to be viable.
Yes, Portugal fought wars and won battles to earn and maintain its empire. So did literally every country on earth whose history goes back far enough(with the possible exception of San Marino and Andorra). I would rather national ideas focus on what is unique about a given nation.
- 7
- 5
- 3
So would you consider a merchant an unique thing about Portugal?
- 1
I would consider it to contribute to the global expansion playstyle, yes- holding land in more trade zones, Portugal needs more merchants to bring the wealth of the world back to Lisbon. Plus, it gives Portugal in-game a relatively rare advantage, as compared to minor bonuses to combat ability which many nations have and which ultimately have little effect in single player.
- 4
- 1
The Vasa was sabotaged by danish weasels, Just stating facts.
Back to Topic /s
Back to Topic /s
- 2
- 1
- 1
Not quite. Portuguese colonization and the Feitorias were inspired by what the Venetians was based on what the Venetians and Genoese were doing in the Mediterranean (which in turn bears resemblance to Hellenistic greek colonization).
Portugal always had a small population when compared to the other famous Colonizers (consequence of most of their country being mountains) so they couldn't afford to establish big colonial nations, nor would it be as profitable as establishing trade strongholds. All in all, EU IV isn't equipped to adequately represent Portugal (naval-trade empire that dabbled in colonization).
Their empire wasn't that much different than that of Venice in its heyday.
- 1
- 1
For "the like of which" read "the scale of which". While their system of colonization/trade was nothing fundamentally new, their Empire stands out for the vast range over which it was practiced. Bits of South and Southeast Asia and bits of Europe, with some Africa and America thrown in for variety, made for a wider reaching empire- though not a larger one in terms of land area held- than had ever been seen before.
- 4
@Sete at least your draft of the idea set doesn't include the bandeirantes.
Having bandeirantes on Portugal's NI would be like having Manifest Destiny on Great Britain's ideas.
Bear in mind that Portugal was designed to be an easy country for players new to the game and the Colonization mechanics. That's why their NIs are what they are and why they start friendly towards Castile.
Having bandeirantes on Portugal's NI would be like having Manifest Destiny on Great Britain's ideas.
Bear in mind that Portugal was designed to be an easy country for players new to the game and the Colonization mechanics. That's why their NIs are what they are and why they start friendly towards Castile.
- 2
Then what's the problem with the trade steering suggestion instead of merchant?
If people are so fed up of the military ideas, start taking then away from Sweden, Prussia, France, UK.
I'm literally giving Portugal -15% mercenary maintenance, or 10% inf CA instead of goods produced.
Which I already justified why.
Now i can point several non existant nations that have military ideas, and even existing ones that have debatable military prowess, but it's at giving Portugal a buff where you draw the line?
A meager one at that?
It's strikes me as odd.
If I'm ignoring Aljubarrota to avoid giving a military bonus tradition, can the English player ignore Angicourt for their infantry combat ability?
This seems like a bit of bias to me at the very least, since Traditions are and I quote: "two abilities which define the history and heritage of the country."
What's the history and Heritage of Portugal before 1444? Exploration? Commerce? Or its wars to become Independent from Leon and Castille and the Reconquista?
And yet I'm ignoring this important part of Portugal history, the struggles that defined it as an independent Kingdom, to have 2 traditions that are secondary in nature, because adding a military idea aparently breaks the game balance.
Are the Afonsine Ordinances, an obscure set of civil laws to concentrate the power in the crown, more defining for Portugal than its Restoration war? Is that academy of artillery and fortifications more important than the battle of diu?
Which, and again, I quote:
William Weir in his book 50 Battles That Changed the World, ranks this battle as the 6th most important in history, losing only to the Battle of Marathon, the Nika Rebellion, the Battle of Bunker Hill, the Battle of Arbela (Gaugamela) and the Battle of Hattin. He says: "When the 15th century began, Islam seemed about ready to dominate the world. That prospect sank in the Indian Ocean off Diu."The historian Rainer Daehnhardt says that this battle is compared only to the Battles of Lepanto and Trafalgar in terms of importance and legacy. According to the scholar Michael Adas, this battle "established European Naval superiority in the Indian Ocean for centuries to come."
If England players can have their Brittania rules the waves, I'm sure I can have my Mare Clausum.
Last edited:
- 4
- 2
Uff bad news, it actually does.
The Brazilian gold rush and the Bandeirantes, I think are an important part of Portugal history.
I simply cannot ignore the colonization rush that happened due to the gold discovery at Brazil.
Brazilian Gold Rush created the world's longest gold rush period and the largest gold mines in South America.
To add Portugal should have a decision when the Castillian succession crisis hits to join the conflict, as Afonso V historically did https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Toro or to support Isabella claim and then grant the historical friend bonus. This could give a new player, or a veteran player a new choice in the course of the game, instead of just sending 2000 manpower.
Still, the gold rush started in 1690 and the bandeirantes, while important in this context, had been important for well over a century by that point. I still think that having them be an idea of Portugal is a bad way of representing them. With most of them being half-native and half-portuguese and operating only in the Americas, I think it would be best to have them as an event chain for their Brazilian CN (if you want to be generous, extend this event to all Portuguese CN).
Yeah the Castilian Civil War is very sad. That disaster deserves a rework.
P.S: funny how the gold rush is just a historical footnote which is even barely mentioned in the university. Doubly funny if you know how obsessed with socioeconomics the Brazilian Historians are.
- 1
No no no We Sweds need does Ides because Denmark is on the other side of our border. As far as i know Portugal don’t Border Denmark. However if a Danish Colony finds his way to the Carbian Portugal may get an event with +15 disapline.
- 2
- 2
- 1
What you mean? You are not Historical Friends? Like England and Scotland? Like France and Germany? Like Byzantium and Ottomans?
- 5
Yes we are. Very close historical friends just like Byzantium and Ottomans. Wanting the other to be part of our nation.
- 4
- 3
- 1
What exactly is biased about his complaints? He supported every single claim with context and sources, and his suggestions are extremely minor, it will hardly change anything.
Do you know what is actually being biased?
Giving Castile +15% Morale in the traditions, when in literaly every single conflict they had against Portugal up until that point proved humiliating and disastrous (I'm sure Sete could provide you with dozens of sources if you actually cared about History instead of stereotypes), despite being a much larger and populated nation.
Do you know what is being biased?
Giving Castile +5% Morale in preparation for conquering Granada, an isolated 4 province minor, completely surrounded by Castile (and who should only historically fall by 1498, after P.U'ing Aragon) and in the meanwhile Portugal only gets a single claim in their mission to conquer the Moroccan coast (which historicaly should begin in 1471, without getting babysitted by Castile) from an overseas enemy with very superior development, almost twice the force limit, a vassal swarm and usually allied with Tlemcen or Tunis.
Do you know what's being biased?
Giving Castile +10% Morale for Conquering the Moroccan coast, an arbitrary massive reward for something they never achieved, while Portugal only gets a few admin points for doing the same feature (which they actually did irl), except from a much harder starting position.
Do you know what's being biased?
Giving Castile a +200% Cannons on Board flagship unique modifier, when Portugal was actually the country who built the Flagship with the most firepower in the entire world for two thirds of the game's timeframe, the S.João Baptista, and the Flagship of the "Spanish Armada" was the S.Martinho, a Portuguese Ship, who singlehandedly fought and survived an engagement with 15 English Galleons in 1588.
Do you know what's being biased?
Giving Ireland "Normal winters" (+2 Attrition for enemies) while their average minimum winter temperature is about +2.5C, while the Portuguese provinces of Bragança and Guarda have "no winters" (and thus, no attrition) despite having average minimum winter temperatures of -0.5C (and actually having historical precendents of being extremely attrition-heavy provinces, totaling 30K Spanish and French casualties in less than a year of occupation during the 7 years war).
I could go on forever, but you get the point.
Portugal never works as they are supposed to.
1st they never achieve anything remotely close to what they did in Asia, I never once saw them conquering Mombassa, Melinde, Hormuz, Socotra, Diu, Calicut, Ceylon, Malacca, Macau, Nagasaki... whatever, none, never. They only get Goa via event and maybe they buy some trade charter somewhere.
2nd they focus far too much on colonization, they often colonize half of America, and often get Australia, this is completely inconceivable in real life since they had a tiny population incapable of colonizing large territories. There is a reason why Spain's Colonial Empire was 5x-6x larger than Portugal's, yet this never happens in game.
3rd they are terrible at defending. The only reason they tend to survive is because of the completely ahistorical historical friends modifier with Spain. Anyone who ever tried to conquer Portugal in this game will realise that its extremely easy, you just steamroll their paper armies, siege Lisbon for a couple of months and its over. In real life they proved to be extremely cappable at defending their own borders from any foreign power that invaded them, i could list dozens of examples of disastrous invasions of Portugal.
Mid-sized nation which punches way above its weight but struggles with economy? Yeah, you just described Portugal right there.
Portugal was small, their colonial empire was small (it was mostly coastal trade centers and forts, easy to occupy and easy to defend) their economy was actually not as great as most people believe it was, its GDP per capita was always behind everyone else in Western Europe, with only two brief exceptions in the early 1500's (Soon after discovering India and having the monopoly on the naval routes to india) and the early 1700's (soon after discovering gold in Brazil)
In this game, they are literally the opposite of real life, they achieve a massive colonial empire, become disgustingly wealthy, and only win by throwing hordes of mercenaries to the meat grinder. Portugal was always the outnumbered underdog on all their fights, this simply isn't represented at all.
Here then, have my complaint.
I am equally critic of where Portugal is ahistorically weak (military quality) and where its ahistorically overpowered (Trade efficiency and Colonization).
I want to nerf their colonial potential, and rework their trade cappabilities so it requires them to actively build a trade empire to profit from it (example, discounts to charter company investments and light ship trade steering, so they need the ships and companies to profit) instead of just being passively good at trade (by giving them gobal trade power and efficiency)
Portugal doesn't need to be more militaristic, its biggest limiting factor in history has always been the same: Small population, low manpower.
Therefore, it needs to rely more on quality than quantity, simple as.
Nobody wants Portugal to be a heavy weight hitter, we want them to be a light weight hitter, who punches above its weight.
I've followed every single suggestion, and not a single suggestion for Portugal gives them higher military quality than Spain. And every single military engagement between these two countries proves that they were at least on pair when it comes to quality. There is not a single example in history where Spain wins outnumbered against Portugal, there are dozens of examples of Portugal winning outnumbered against Spain. Objectively speaking, Portugal undoubtedly deserves higher military quality than +10% artillery combat, every backwater American or African native has stronger military ideas than that. and
Not a single person ever managed to disprove these statements on the basis of providing counter examples of Portugal's military incompetence, and simply instead resort to arguments of "BUT MUH TRADE AND COLONISATION STEREOTYPES"
For starters, most of his changes where description and flavour changes without gameplay effects, so you are simply weong when claiming its not about historicity but only buffing Portugal.
Secondly, he only suggested like +10% Infantry combat ability. That is irrelevant, hardly makes a difference.
And thirdly, they are not about making Portugal stronger, they are about making it a more quality than quantity oriented nation, and that on its own is already portraying Portugal in a more realistic/historical way.
Anyone with a History Diploma or that as ever read a book on Portugal knows their historical strengths and limitations, and knows that its the opposite of what this game pretends them to be.
Exploration, Colonization and Trade are not wrong answers, but they lack nuace.
Exploration is correct, Portugal spearheaded the age of Exploration, but this was achieved by massive breakthroughs in naval technology and shipbuilding.
Colonization is correct, as that was the Portuguese method of expansion, but the Portuguese concept of Colonization was not the same as the Spanish, English or French one, who sent settlers to the Americas to build homes and claim the land the Portuguese colonization was more alike the Dutch one, done in Africa and Asia, by conquering cities, forts and trade ports and dominating the trade in the area (And also a bit of conventional colonization in Brazil of course, but that was to a much lesser extent than any of the ones above)
Trade is also correct, although the Portuguese trade was by no means a peaceful exchange of goods, but a violent and coercive exploitation of the local economies. And to secure the trade routes Portugal militarily invaded and occupied countless of other nations across the globe.
France was defeated but only due to the sheer numerical superiority of their countless enemies, pound per pound France was extremely militarily cappable during Napoleon's rule and thus deserves their military quality (it just doesn't deserve it as soon as they get it, Elan should be a last idea or an ambition)
Prussia's military fame is simply a massive publicity stunt. Sure they did have some impressive military features (most are outside of the game's scope anyway), expecially in the 7 years war, but nothing completely out of the ordinary that warrants their ridiculously disproportionate fame.
But you said it yourself, Stereotypes =/= Reality, so lets stop prepetuating them.
There is everything wrong with going with Stereotypes, ideas should aim to help countries achieve what they historically achieved, HOW they achieved it, it should portray their historical limiting factors and their historical advantages. Then evaluate it in proportion to eachother, its honestly not that hard, expecially since you can organise the idea unlocking timing, missions, age bonuses and events, so its perfectly reasonable to shift the balance of power and adapt to national changes, like making Spain military superior to France pre-1650 but then inferior 1650-onwards.It just is completely impossible to properly represent every single country in this game based on its (the country's) own records. Then of course every country would have those +5% discipline (just an example) which means, if everybody has it, nobody has. There is nothing wrong in going with stereotypes, the Dutch are Traders, the Swiss are fierce Warriors, the Austrians/Habsburgs cunning diplomats. It works for the game, creates different feelings and it is a game after all, so I am rather glad the devs are reluctant to give in to all those proposed changes too quickly (Of course it's not just Portugal, you could do that for every country, I am from the Palatinate and would also propose some "unbiased changes" to that idea-set
Last edited:
- 5
- 4
- 1
- 1
Its a shame that the game doesnt portray how Spain, Portugal and France to some extent didnt really populaire their colonies like the english did and instead saw them as cashcows to further their interests. Would have been great to designate a colony as either exploitation/population colony wich would give different bonuses and one more suited for short term and the other long term. Thats something i feel could have been great in gc to change the colonial experience for the iberians and let them colonize much faster than others (with exploitation colonies) instead of ahistoric pop. moving they gave them.
- 3
The english did see them as cash cows, but they failed to find gold or silver like the south american colonies had, so they went for the next best option by cultivating cash crops such as tobacco and sugar.
In 1770 40% of british economic activity came from the thirteen colonies.
The whole reason the american revolution kicked off was due to heavy taxation imposed only on them, creating the sentiment they were lesser subjects of the crown compared to those in the homeland.
- 4
True, but they (13 colonies) still had 1 million population compared to the 70000 Nouvelle-France had by 1760 (who didnt have gold/silver either, only pelts). While i agree the crown wanted them (us) as cashcows, they knew the population there was getting out of control and the main reason for the war was more about the crown preventing the colonists from going further west and therefore even more pop. than the unfair high tarriffs (sounds way more noble than wanting To wreck indians for all theyve got). The end result was that english 13 colonies had wayyyy more people in them by proportion compared to others, all that while starting the process the latest.
A good post Bandua.
I have the user in question in my ignore list because someone starting their argument accusing me of Nationalism because I changed 1 and a half ideas, it's not worth my effort.
And yes I was quite mild in my sugestion.
For example Ethiopia as mentioned gets a huge buff from a Portugal event.
Portugal has no way in game to achieve those buffs military, and yet, others have it by sympathy.
A Japan faction has 5% fire damage due to the facts that was the first one to use the matchlock.
Guess who brought the matchlock there?
And guess who does not have a fire damage bonus?
Another southeast Asian faction has 5% discipline for the idea european mercenaries.
Guess who? And again guess who does not have it?
Portugal was done dirty, even the Pirates Republics had more effort going into them. Giving me a mission tree that is just a railroad of what they did historically, without any effort to giving them alt history routes, and yet you can form Germany and do an African scramble a few centuries earlier further reinforces my point that Portugal was an afterthought, and no actual effort or research was done.
Check HoIV, where Portugal was barely part of the conflict and how much research and suggestions they took from the community to give it flavour.
Personally I would be happy with just moving the artillery and fort defense idea to the third slot, that's how low my expectations are.
Portugal had built more than 50 forts around the world before the Royal Academy was even built.
A quick and dirty wiki link:
en.m.wikipedia.org
Taking other historical strategy games into account, Like CiV, AoE and total war, Portugal is always depicted as a naval gunpowder civilization with usually a feitoria as a unique building.
To translate this to EU IV, Navy, Fire Damage and Trade Power.
At the moment you have a lot of trade power.
To add, colonization needs work.
Building a Trade Company should not take the same time to build as a Colony.
They should be separate actions.
This would take a colonizer out of exploration group, forcing a colonial empire to choose expansion, and add another mechanic to replace the colonizer in the exploration focus, just a quick idea.
This way we would avoid seeing Portuguse North America, Australia and South America.
I have the user in question in my ignore list because someone starting their argument accusing me of Nationalism because I changed 1 and a half ideas, it's not worth my effort.
And yes I was quite mild in my sugestion.
For example Ethiopia as mentioned gets a huge buff from a Portugal event.
Portugal has no way in game to achieve those buffs military, and yet, others have it by sympathy.
A Japan faction has 5% fire damage due to the facts that was the first one to use the matchlock.
Guess who brought the matchlock there?
And guess who does not have a fire damage bonus?
Another southeast Asian faction has 5% discipline for the idea european mercenaries.
Guess who? And again guess who does not have it?
Portugal was done dirty, even the Pirates Republics had more effort going into them. Giving me a mission tree that is just a railroad of what they did historically, without any effort to giving them alt history routes, and yet you can form Germany and do an African scramble a few centuries earlier further reinforces my point that Portugal was an afterthought, and no actual effort or research was done.
Check HoIV, where Portugal was barely part of the conflict and how much research and suggestions they took from the community to give it flavour.
Personally I would be happy with just moving the artillery and fort defense idea to the third slot, that's how low my expectations are.
Portugal had built more than 50 forts around the world before the Royal Academy was even built.
A quick and dirty wiki link:
List of Portuguese colonial forts - Wikipedia
Taking other historical strategy games into account, Like CiV, AoE and total war, Portugal is always depicted as a naval gunpowder civilization with usually a feitoria as a unique building.
To translate this to EU IV, Navy, Fire Damage and Trade Power.
At the moment you have a lot of trade power.
To add, colonization needs work.
Building a Trade Company should not take the same time to build as a Colony.
They should be separate actions.
This would take a colonizer out of exploration group, forcing a colonial empire to choose expansion, and add another mechanic to replace the colonizer in the exploration focus, just a quick idea.
This way we would avoid seeing Portuguse North America, Australia and South America.
Last edited:
- 2
- 2