-
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.
First, I agree with all spelling corrections in the spreadsheet.RichardTheFirst said:
You have said on a number of occasions that you only want to make a few changes to the file and I agree with that. However when changing an inappropriate leader into a more relevant one I think we will have to change the dates and the stats otherwise we will just be swapping one mistake for another. If we can change the dates then we could perhaps add a few extra leaders to the end of the file to fill in any gaps created in the dates although I'm not sure we'll get away with it.
As for the proposed changes to the leaders, I agree that de Andrade should be equated with Gomes Freire de Andrade although Freire would have been enough. I'm not keen on full names, they don't seem to be relevant to the game. Similarly Schomberg would have been sufficient but maybe thats just me. Making Trant become Bernadim Freire fits well with the dates.
Introducing Zarco and Ravasco I'll go with although I don't know much about them. Making Correos into Caramuru moves a powerful Conq to Brazil at a time when Portugal needs leadership in the East. From a dates point of view, changing De Queros to Pires de Andrade will cause fewer problems but the dates will need to be more like 1509-1517.
If you start the list you might be able to provide us with some leaders that we can use but if you read this thread you will realise that we may not be able to introduce any new leaders at all.Elio Vasa said:
Albuquerque said:
Being myself Portuguese I would be surprised if you don't
.Albuquerque said:
I'm well aware of that problem. As I said before either we are completely accurate with the dates or we try to choose the best leaders. If we have to change the dates I don't think they would "buy" it. It is swapping one mistake for another but small differences in dates are a lesser mistake, IMHO.
Albuquerque said:
That's what I was talking about when I suggested we correct F. de Almeida's correct date of death and try to add another Conq. for the period 1510-1520. Let's see what new leaders idontlikeforms is going to present us.
Albuquerque said:
I don't agree with you, you have to think about Portuguese speaking players. As you already noticed there are a lot of leaders with similar last names and that coud be confusing. Also some names are very common in Portugal (and in Brazil, Angola, etc) so you really need at least 2 names and in some cases 3. The 2 Freires de Andrade are good examples.
Besides Portugal is not the only case, Spanish names for example have the same problem.
What we can do if you prefer in cases we have 3 names is to change the middle name to an inicial. e.g. Bernardim F. de Andrade, shorter and perfectly identifiable.
Could change Schomberg back to 1 name without much problems though. Not many Schombergs around...
Albuquerque said:
- Zarco was rejected as would inflence game balance. He was important but I go for his exclusion.
- Ravasco wasn't that important but it seems to me a not too bad solution to replace Camões.
- There is no Correos, that's not even a portuguese name. I think they meant Diogo Álvares Correia, the "Caramuru". I already suggested we lower his stats and make Francisco de Almeida stronger. The player is free to move Caramuru to India if he chooses.
- Pires de Andrade - I would like to hear idontlikeforms oppinion but it seems to me that date change could influence gameplay. But... if we agree leaders importance is more important than dates then I go for João da Nova instead of this guy. He was more of an explorer. Also he seems like a more "pitoresque" or "romantic" figure.
Last edited:
I accept that the Portugal leader file should contain names that suit Portuguese taste. The Spain file also has longish names though not the England or France files. If the names have to be long then leave them that way.RichardTheFirst said:
I would have thought the first name should be abbreviated. I would like to hear what other people have to say about name lengths before we shorten any. Schomberg should definitely be shortened though.
Er.. I meant G. V. Cabral, sorry. :wacko:
(Edit: The AGCEEP discussed the leader names here more than a year ago and agreed with you in that Correos had to be Caramuru because of the dates.)
Last edited:
Albuquerque said:
Lol, no problem. You can see in a message above idont and I agreed GVC was the real discoverer of Açores. Here in Portugal he is considered one of the top 8 explorers. The other 7 are:
- Gonçalves Zarco
- Gil Eanes
- Diogo Cão
- Bartolomeu Dias
- Vasco da Gama
- Pedro A.Cabral
- Fernão de Magalhães (although working for Spain)
XV century
Just to make more order, I can add leaders in my Elio GC according to Your acknowledges:
Nuno Álvares Pereira, general 4/5/0/4 1385-1431
Gil Eanes, explorer 1/1/0/2 1433-1448
Diogo de Silves, explorer 1/1/0/2 1425-1435
Avranches, general 3/3/0/3 1435-1449
Afonso V, monarch 3/2/1/3 1446-1481
Fernão do Pó, explorer 1/1/0/3 1469-1481
Diogo Cão, explorer 1/1/0/3 1480-1486
Pêro da Covilhã, conquistador 3/3/0/6 1486-1527
Bartolomeu Dias, explorer 2/2/0/6 1487-1500
So I could add João Gonçalves Zarco, but pls edit:
category, rank, stats, startdate, enddate
Just to make more order, I can add leaders in my Elio GC according to Your acknowledges:
Nuno Álvares Pereira, general 4/5/0/4 1385-1431
Gil Eanes, explorer 1/1/0/2 1433-1448
Diogo de Silves, explorer 1/1/0/2 1425-1435
Avranches, general 3/3/0/3 1435-1449
Afonso V, monarch 3/2/1/3 1446-1481
Fernão do Pó, explorer 1/1/0/3 1469-1481
Diogo Cão, explorer 1/1/0/3 1480-1486
Pêro da Covilhã, conquistador 3/3/0/6 1486-1527
Bartolomeu Dias, explorer 2/2/0/6 1487-1500
So I could add João Gonçalves Zarco, but pls edit:
category, rank, stats, startdate, enddate
Elio Vasa said:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/3808/zarco_e.html
Explorer, I would make the rank and stats equal to Diogo de Silves. As for the dates I don't know: date of death is unknown, suggestion: 1400-1419, so he could only explore for one year and not unbalance the game too much.
If you are going to include leaders in your file I suggest you include Gonçalo Velho Cabral (explorer) and D. Henrique (general) in this period.
The complete name of Avranches is D. Álvaro Vaz de Almada (count of Avranches) - but in my oppinion this guy was pretty unimportant. Been in the African Campaign but didn't command anything AFAIK, and was killed at battle of Alfarrobeira, not being in command also. The rest of his life seems to be politics.
Last edited:
My main idea is that in MP games Portugal should have a leader in a continuous way. It's dangerous vs Spain or vs OE ...
If You look carefully, there are (as generals):
at the start Nuno Álvares Pereira that can live till 1431
then after a pause Count of Avranches arises in 1435 (till 1449)
anyway king Afonso V is leader for period 1446-1481
then a vacuum till 1500?
After the explorations Pêro da Covilhã can conquer for many years 1486-1527
P.S. About D. Enrique (1394-1460)
http://www.arqnet.pt/dicionario/henriquei.html
If You look carefully, there are (as generals):
at the start Nuno Álvares Pereira that can live till 1431
then after a pause Count of Avranches arises in 1435 (till 1449)
anyway king Afonso V is leader for period 1446-1481
then a vacuum till 1500?
After the explorations Pêro da Covilhã can conquer for many years 1486-1527
P.S. About D. Enrique (1394-1460)
http://www.arqnet.pt/dicionario/henriquei.html
Elio Vasa said:
I see. If I were you I would search for biographies of monarchs and look for generals or battles and then generals. So, for the period 1481-1500 I would try to seach D.João II and then D.Manuel I.
About king Manoel I (from Vikipedia)RichardTheFirst said:
Manuel used the wealth to build a number of royal buildings (in the manueline style) and to attract scientists and artists to his court. Commercial treatises and diplomatic alliances were forged with China and the Persian Empire.
So let's go to XVI century ...
Elio Vasa said:
Sure, why not... idontlikeforms seems to be out and I'm waiting for his inputs to progress with the portuguese leaders suggestion for new version. So, in the mean time we work in this, it will be good for you of course, and we will have that order list of leaders. Please write here the list you have so far for the XV century.
Regarding the XVI century, what we have so far is:
Exp. 6 2 2 0 Vasco da Gama 1497 1510
Conq. 6 1 1 0 Ruy Lourenço Ravasco ? ?
Conq. 5 5 5 0 Afonso de Albuquerque 1499 1515
Exp. 5 2 2 0 Pedro Álvares Cabral 1500 1502
Conq. 6 4 5 2 Francisco de Almeida 1500 1520
Exp. 5 3 3 0 Gaspar Corte-Real 1500 1503
Exp. 5 3 3 0 Miguel Corte-Real 1500 1503
Conq. 5 5 5 0 Diogo Álvares "Caramuru" ? ?
Exp. 4 3 3 0 Fernão Peres de Andrade ? ?
Exp. 4 3 3 0 João da Nova ? ?
Conq. 6 1 1 0 Francisco Xavier 1525 1555
Conq. 4 3 3 0 Martim Afonso de Sousa 1530 1564
Conq. 5 4 5 2 Mem de Sá 1540 1560
Gen. 3 3 2 0 D. António, Prior do Crato 1578 1593
Adm. António de Saldanha 1503 1536
Gen./Conq. Nuno da Cunha 1529 1539
Adm. André F. de Mendonça 1585 1609
Adm. António Correia ? 1521
We need to check the dates for the ?'s and add new leaders. This century had a lot of leaders and I wouldn't be surprised if we could had 10/20 more names to this list. I don't have time now, will come back to this later and maybe you could do some research too in the mean time.
EDIT - P.S. - Diogo Caramuru stats should be lower, maybe 6-1-1-0. We can make Nuno da Cunha a Conqueror too with 5-5-5-0, just an idea.
Last edited:
Generals in XVI century
1st half
Afonso de Albuquerque, conquistador 5/5/0/5 1499-1515
Pêro da Covilhã, conquistador 3/3/0/6 1486-1527
sacrified due to same time frame:
Luís de Camões, conquistador 1/1/0/6 1497-1512
then there are:
Francisco de Almeida, conquistador 4/5/2/6 1500-1520
Diogo Álvares Correia, conquistador 5/5/0/5 1509-1527
after them (I'll add him ):
Nuno da Cunha, conquistador 5/5/1/5 1529-1538
sacrified due to same time frame:
Francisco Xavier, conquistador 1/1/0/6 1525-1555
2nd half
Mem de Sà, conquistador 4/5/2/5 1540-1560
Martim de Sousa, conquistador 3/3/0/4 1530-1564
after a pause of some years:
D. António Prior do Crato, general 3/2/0/3 1578-1593
1st half
Afonso de Albuquerque, conquistador 5/5/0/5 1499-1515
Pêro da Covilhã, conquistador 3/3/0/6 1486-1527
sacrified due to same time frame:
Luís de Camões, conquistador 1/1/0/6 1497-1512
then there are:
Francisco de Almeida, conquistador 4/5/2/6 1500-1520
Diogo Álvares Correia, conquistador 5/5/0/5 1509-1527
after them (I'll add him
):Nuno da Cunha, conquistador 5/5/1/5 1529-1538
sacrified due to same time frame:
Francisco Xavier, conquistador 1/1/0/6 1525-1555
2nd half
Mem de Sà, conquistador 4/5/2/5 1540-1560
Martim de Sousa, conquistador 3/3/0/4 1530-1564
after a pause of some years:
D. António Prior do Crato, general 3/2/0/3 1578-1593
OK, idontlikeforms already told me by PM which leaders to add. Here is the new spreadsheet with some more changes.
1 - I think Avranches is pretty unknown. D.Henrique "The Navigator" is a better option.
2 - He died in 1510, didn't find a decent "follower" for the period 1510-1520.
errr 2 - Couldn't find nothing about António Fernandes. I guess we could "relive" Queirós
3 and 4 - 2 of the additions suggested by idontlikeforms. Álvaro de Menezes seems not important and it seems it existed an error with Álvares Botelho as we was present twice.
You'll find more about this changes in the later messages.
Would like to have your opinions as soon as possible.
1 - I think Avranches is pretty unknown. D.Henrique "The Navigator" is a better option.
2 - He died in 1510, didn't find a decent "follower" for the period 1510-1520.
errr 2 - Couldn't find nothing about António Fernandes. I guess we could "relive" Queirós
3 and 4 - 2 of the additions suggested by idontlikeforms. Álvaro de Menezes seems not important and it seems it existed an error with Álvares Botelho as we was present twice.
You'll find more about this changes in the later messages.
Would like to have your opinions as soon as possible.
I agree. The AGCEEP and EP already have him.RichardTheFirst said:OK, idontlikeforms already told me by PM which leaders to add. Here is the new spreadsheet with some more changes.
1 - I think Avranches is pretty unknown. D.Henrique "The Navigator" is a better option.
Code:
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09628 }
category = general
name = "The Infantes"
startdate = { year = 1419 }
deathdate = { year = 1437 }
rank = 2
movement = 2
fire = 2
shock = 3
siege = 1
remark = "The son of King João and Mestre of Aviz." }I don't think you really need one. The AI won't use it anyways and humans can colonize with guys too heavily already as is.RichardTheFirst said:
António Fernandes, unless there was more than one of significance, was a degradado that explored Monomotapa. That would make him a conq though and the start date would be around 1510. I have no idea if this is the same guy who was made into an explorer and incorrectly.RichardTheFirst said:
Ruy Freyre's name is accurate. Might want to use the dates I gave though. All the dates I gave for the leaders I recommended should be accurate. And I wouldn't put "unimportant" for Furtado. He's more important than many others on the list.RichardTheFirst said:
Should Correa retain his 5-5-5 stats? Did he do any fighting that would justify his being made into such an awesome military leader? Xavier has 6-1-1.RichardTheFirst said:
Was Afonso de Castro that important? Wouldn't De Sa, for example, simply replace him?
I'd use Fernão Peres de Andrade to replace Queiros. Da Nova was dead before 1515.
Ruy Ravasco fought battles. I'd give him 3-3-2 and 1497 is too early. That's pre-Da Gama. How bout 1504? Camoens isn't exactly heavily used by humans as is anyways, due to there being too many other active conqs at the time. AI's won't use more than one at a time either.
Who's "Francisco Pereira da Silva?"
Nuno Da Cunha was a pretty good commander. I'd give him the stats I recommended. Portugal has no generals at the time anyways. Same with the other leaders I recommended.
idontlikeforms said:
He participated in the conquest of Alcacer-Ceguer in 1458. See more here.
idontlikeforms said:
Ok. That was just for accuracy. But as some as the other dates are wrong...
idontlikeforms said:
OK, anyway this guy was not an explorer and the dates are very different.
idontlikeforms said:
Actually it's Rui Freire de Andrade. See here. Changed the dates to your's. Done.
idontlikeforms said:
Changed dates for André Furtado de Mendonça. Done.
idontlikeforms said:
"Not important" was referring to D.Álvaro de Meneses
idontlikeforms said:
Thought about doing that but forgot. Done.
idontlikeforms said:
The "admiral" Afonso de Castro did fought some battles and Constantino de Sá is here as a general. We came to the conclusion that Portugal needs more generals and he is one of the new two. I suggest we leave it like this.
idontlikeforms said:
What did F.P.Andrade discovered? At least João da Nova made some discoveries. I know dates are more close but...
Do you want F.P.Andrade as an admiral? I can do that.
idontlikeforms said:
Good suggestion. Done.
idontlikeforms said:
Now that you ask: Don't know. Do you have an alternative?
idontlikeforms said:
Done.
Here's the new situation.
Hehe. Depends on what you call accurate. For example Afonso de Albuquerque never signed his name "Afonso de Albuquerque." He always signed it "Afonso Dalboquerque." "Ruy Freyre" is how it is spelled in the book(primary source) on him. BTW, is "Ruy" or "Freyre" ever how Portuguese currently spell these names? Or is it always "Rui" and "Freire?" For the sake of uniformity, I agree with your call here. I'll change his name in EP too.RichardTheFirst said:
IC.RichardTheFirst said:
ChinaRichardTheFirst said:
Not really. I have some leaders made for around that time, but they weren't any where near as important as the ones I've suggested so far.RichardTheFirst said:
Looks pretty good.RichardTheFirst said:
idontlikeforms said:
It's all about ancient portuguese and modern portuguese, the names I wrote are all modern. d'Albuquerque or d'Alboquerque are ancient and so is Ruy. Don't know about Freyre, maybe.
idontlikeforms said:
Well, I have a problem here. What I read said he lead the first diplomatic mission to China and that he was expected there. In no place I read he was the first european to arrive to China by sea. If he were I'm sure he would be very well know by that and he's not. This makes me be have lots of reserves on classifying him as an explorer.
More about him in this sites: http://nautarch.tamu.edu/shiplab/01guifrulopes/Pguinote-naubn2.htm , http://www.marinha.pt/extra/revista/ra_jul2004/pag_15.html
idontlikeforms said:
I think a less important leader is better than no leader at all. And I can't find nothing about this guy... What do you have?
But didn't he take Tome Pires to China? Who went to China before him?RichardTheFirst said:
Actually that A.N.C. website has him listed for three naval battles. I don't know anything about him, but if he's listed for three battles perhaps he was important.RichardTheFirst said: