• 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.
There is such a thing as to many explorers. One reason for limiting the number of Explorers it to limit the pace of exploration to fit history. The same could be said about Generals and attempting to limit the pace of conquest. I could go through French history and add a half dozen generals off the top of my head, many many more with a little research. I could also tack on some explorers and conquistadors as well. That doesn't make it good for gameplay though.

Again, as i've said elsewhere on this forum, EU2 is about playing like history, not nessecarily exactly representing it. Sometimes worthy people get left out for the sake of game play. Fourtantly it's just a game =P

That said, if you guys have more fun with 40 explorers and 50 generals in Portugal's leader file, have at it =P
 
Hi there!

been folowing this thread for some time, and managed to get somethings for you :D

Diogo de Azambuja (1432 -1518) -> knight of the Avis order by 18, served in Aragon (1464/66 with D. Pedro), fought alongside with D. João II in the siege of Alegrete in 1477. he was responsible for the development of S. Jorge da Mina (Elmina) in the 1st months of 1482 (the fort was one of the first examples of pre-made constructions, built in Portugal and assembled in Africa if i'm not mistaken, have to check), and governor from 1482/4, becoming a member of the Royal Counsil by order of the king D. João II (he did trust him a lot). In 1506 he is made responsible for the defense of Mogador by D. Manuel, and took Safim in 1508, becoming it's governor until he is retired from public offices in 1510 with 77 years old.


Matias de Albuquerque (1595-1647) -> born brazilian, was made governor after the fall of Baía, and the imprisonment of the previous governor by the dutch. taking Salinas in 1630, he fought a guerrilla type warfare against the dutch after the fall of Pernambuco and won. arrested in 1635, victim of intrigues and deceits, he was released in 1640, and played a major role in the early years of the Restauração wars, fortifying Olivença, Elvas and Campo Maior. Lead the portuguese forces in Montijo, in 1644, the first major victory against Spain, becoming the 1st count of Alegrete. He died shortly after the defeat in Telena in 1647.

chose these two not only for their deeds but can be used both ways as conquistadores or generals. I haven't take this info from the net, but from my small library, so anything that comes up i'll post it on... hope u see some use to it ;)

regards
 
About Avranches, Henrique, Pedro.

Well, the arguments Xang bring turned Henrique a worst solution than I thought. The arguments stating he wasn't a leader at Ceuta or Alcácer-Ceger sounded convencing.

So: let's summarize the options we have here.

Avranches
Importance in History/Notority: Small
Military Importance: Small
General?: No.
Battles: Ceuta (minor role) and Internal Disputes
Flavour to the game: none

Henrique
Importance in History/Notority: Very big
Military Importance: Average
General?: No.
Battles: Ceuta (minor role), Tânger (defeat), Alcacer-Ceger (secondary role)
Flavour to the game: great

Pedro
Importance in History/Notority: Average/Big
Military Importance: Average
General?: No/maybe.
Battles: Ceuta (minor role), some external (minor), internal disputes
Flavour to the game: average

In my oppinion all solutions are weak solutions. But we need a general, right? I think now we can go for a purist military approach, a flavour approach or sum all the factors. I'm now less enthusiastic for Henrique but I still vote for him. Some military qualities of his brother are not enough to compensate for the Big flavour Henrique brings to the game. But still I could accept Pedro if the majority of oppinions go for him. Avranches for me is unacceptable.

Unfortunatelly Diogo da Azambuja is not of this period. But I'll try to learn more about him soon.
 
LSSpam: Currently we (me and RichardTheFirst, at least) are not thinking of adding any general, and the only explorer we intend to present as a recommended addition is João da Nova, which shouldn’t damage balance for the reasons exposed before. All the other names are only replacing previous names. Something like one or two additional conquistadors should also be in this final list. It’s not a matter of including everyone that deserves to be represented, it’s just a matter of making the file better represent the historical balance of power. Currently, in terms of leadership, Portugal is weaker then it should. Of course, the final decision to include anything or not belongs to AndrewT, Johan, or whoever is responsible for that.

Zyki3: Thanks Zyki3, those are two good names. On Matias de Albuquerque I should say that he won in Salvador (as a Governor at least), not Pernambuco (which was regained later by his successors in the guerrilla). I believe he is more important for his victory in Montijo against Spain, so, that should make him a general. As addition of generals are extremely unpopular due to the possibility of hurting the balance, he would need to replace someone else, and I’m afraid there’s no one left to be replaced under this category. As a conquistador, we have Pedro Teixeira with very similar dates, but I don’t think we should replace him, so I will leave M. de Albuquerque in the list of possible conquistador additions.
On Diogo de Azambuja, he is possibily a better alternative than Ravasco to replace Camoes. Even his dates fit. If the others agree, I will replace him.
 
Last edited:
XANG XONG III said:
LSSpam: Currently we (me and RichardTheFirst, at least) are not thinking of adding any general, and the only explorer we intend to present as a recommended addition is João da Nova, which shouldn’t damage balance for the reasons exposed before. All the other names are only replacing previous names. Something like one or two additional conquistadors should also be in this final list. It’s not a matter of including everyone that deserves to be represented, it’s just a matter of making the file better represent the historical balance of power. Currently, in terms of leadership, Portugal is weaker then it should. Of course, the final decision to include anything or not belongs to AndrewT, Johan, or whoever is responsible for that. .
I really don't quite understand this question yet. AI tents to have the Generals in Europe and the Conquistadors exploring? If that is the question then I agree the (few) additions should be Conquistadors (not with great stats). If not then Generals.

What happens to Admirals? Same thing?
XANG XONG III said:
On Diogo de Azambuja, he is possibily a better alternative than Ravasco to replace Camoes. Even his dates fit. If the others agree, I will replace him.
For the little I read he seems better or at least better ranked than Ravasco. More acomplishments too, as settlements are also things that should be part of a Conquistador's "job". I agree.
 
RichardTheFirst said:
I really don't quite understand this question yet. AI tents to have the Generals in Europe and the Conquistadors exploring? If that is the question then I agree the (few) additions should be Conquistadors (not with great stats). If not then Generals.

What happens to Admirals? Same thing?

I have seen ai Spain, England and Russia using their conquistadors correctly as military leaders, though I can’t tell whether that’s the rule or a lucky exception. Idontlikeforms seems to know more about ai usage of conquistadors, so perhaps he can help you. The problem with adding Generals is that they can be used everywhere, even in Europe, and this can damage the balance, especially in MP. Besides, in Europe alliance sieges are quite common and the generals can be used to steal sieges (that would be risky for a conquistador). I’m not saying that the balance shouldn't be changed, but that’s something far more complicated. As for the Admirals and Conquistadors addition, as long as they really need to be there, don’t have an ubber stats, and don’t come in a particular moment where it can really make a huge difference, like a conquistador in the beginning of the game, they shouldn’t cause a major damage in the balance.

RichardTheFirst said:
For the little I read he seems better or at least better ranked than Ravasco. More acomplishments too, as settlements are also things that should be part of a Conquistador's "job". I agree.

Good. I hope the others agree too.

-----------------------------
On a different subject, I was thinking… What if we merge the two Corte Real (or simply remove Miguel) to place João da Nova in the main list? Miguel was under Gaspar’s command in the first two expeditions, and never returned from the last one where he was trying to find his disappeared brother. Their discoveries are basically the same.
 
XANG XONG III said:
I have seen ai Spain, England and Russia using their conquistadors correctly as military leaders, though I can’t tell whether that’s the rule or a lucky exception.
Likely what you saw is an AI moving a troop stack with a conquistador to a province that the AI was trying to explore and it ran into an enemy army, quite unintendedly I can asure you, along the way. I've spent a great deal of time watching how the AI explores and can say matter of factly that AIs never use armies to attack other armies, ever. They simply pick a target province to move to, like one they want to siege, one that is being beseiged and they want to liberate it, one that is a gather point for an army they are massing, or in the case of conquistadors, one that they are trying to explore. The battles occur, always unintentionally, when they run into an army along the way. But conquistadors are never used for the first three types of objectives I've mentioned here.
XANG XONG III said:
The problem with adding Generals is that they can be used everywhere, even in Europe, and this can damage the balance, especially in MP. Besides, in Europe alliance sieges are quite common and the generals can be used to steal sieges (that would be risky for a conquistador). I’m not saying that the balance shouldn't be changed, but that’s something far more complicated. As for the Admirals and Conquistadors addition, as long as they really need to be there, don’t have an ubber stats, and don’t come in a particular moment where it can really make a huge difference, like a conquistador in the beginning of the game, they shouldn’t cause a major damage in the balance.
I've never played MP myself. But I've heard complaints that Portugal gets the crap beat out of him, largely because he has no generals for much of the game. I've also heard people say it would be bad if A & A were switched to generals, because then in MP Portugal could use them early to kill European minors. However I don't see why having additional generals, particularly ones with medium stats and at a later point in the game, rather than shortly after 1492, would be harmful to MP gameplay balance. I'm inclined to believe it's main affect would be to curb easy mid and late game Portuguese beatings. Perhaps some MPers with some experience on this matter will give their two cents.

At any rate, from a historical balance perspective, the Portuguese leader file has a quite unjustified lack of generals and admirals. They did fight incessant wars in the Indies from 1500-1658. And these wars were unlike Spain's Incan and Aztec wars where they simply brutalized vastly technologically inferior armies. The Portuguese wars ni the Indies were not always won and were often fought against opponents not that far behind them in military technology.
XANG XONG III said:
On a different subject, I was thinking… What if we merge the two Corte Real (or simply remove Miguel) to place João da Nova in the main list? Miguel was under Gaspar’s command in the first two expeditions, and never returned from the last one where he was trying to find his disappeared brother. Their discoveries are basically the same.
That's a very good point. I think I'll remove him from EP myself.

BTW, can you give me a weblink to info on Diogo de Azambuja, that has more than just mentioning his El Mina expedition? If it's in Portuguese that's OK too.
 
XANG: Just had an idea (hope a viable one) to help you in the decision making process. Maybe you can open a poll for the leaders you need voting. That could make things faster.
Some forums have special threads that can be made for this. Don't know about this one, maybe the moderators could answer this...

idontlikeforms said:
That's a very good point. I think I'll remove him from EP myself.
Very good idea replacing MCR by JdN.

idontlikeforms said:
BTW, can you give me a weblink to info on Diogo de Azambuja, that has more than just mentioning his El Mina expedition? If it's in Portuguese that's OK too.
http://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogo_de_Azambuja
http://nautarch.tamu.edu/shiplab/projects ir 3006 dazambuja.htm
http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/eurvoya/vasco.html
http://www.dightonrock.com/diago cao-1.htm
http://mx.nthu.edu.tw/~thchang/PMD--Wordfile.htm
http://www.danbyrnes.com.au/merchants/merchants3.htm
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/b/ba/bartolomeu_dias.htm
Note: Use the File-Search function to help you.
 
I was thinking in changing everything that is consensus first, and leave the voting issues to the end. If anyone opposes this idea I’m open to suggestions.
------------------------
On a different subject: Does anyone know any possible name of the same time to replace the second Botelho (1655-80)? If negative, does any one have anything against replacing him with Rui Freire de Andrade (according to IDLF 1612-1633)? An even better alternative? Perhaps António Saldanha is more important?
 
Last edited:
I think we can start voting on Peres de Andrade X Jorge Álvares and on Henrique (the navigator) X Pedro (Duke de Coimbra - the regent) - I will leave Avranches out. Anyone following the thread and interested in voting, just PM me with your vote until November the 6th when I should publish the list with the name of the electors and respective votes.

On Peres de Andrade - Appart of leading the first official expedition to China, and commanding the Portuguese in the important naval victory in Mallaca, he might have explored the Bengal Coast since this was part of his mission. Unfortunnately it is unclear whether he did that after the Chinese expedition or not. portuguese link english link

On Jorge Álvares – Merchant who is credit as the first Portuguese to reach China (1513 or 14).
 
You know my votes so no need for personal messages I think.
 
Last edited:
Personal invite

@ Richard I:
You had bad words towards me, no mind now.
I'm preparing a new MP game that will start in January 2006.
I'll start its recruitment on the forum players by ICQ since next 1st December.
I will offer 1 Nation in Iberia: Portugal, Aragon or Castile.
Why not joining by You to rule the World vs other MP players playing Portugal with inserted leaders?
 
Elio Vasa said:
@ Richard I:
You had bad words towards me, no mind now.
I'm preparing a new MP game that will start in January 2006.
I'll start its recruitment on the forum players by ICQ since next 1st December.
I will offer 1 Nation in Iberia: Portugal, Aragon or Castile.
Why not joining by You to rule the World vs other MP players playing Portugal with inserted leaders?

I didn't had any bad words, just refused your suggestions with good manners and having good motives.

About this invitation that I thank you. I think I'll have to pass on that, I never played MP but I suspect it will be too much time consuming and I'll be very busy til end February. Again thanks for the invitation.

Just out of curiosity: how much hours a day do you think it will take? And how many players?
 
RichardTheFirst said:
Just out of curiosity: how much hours a day do you think it will take? And how many players?

Usually a multiplayer campaign takes one evening per week, say four hours of playing per week.

Most campaigns last from 1492/1520 till 1820, with an average of 20-30 years played per session.
 
FAL said:
Usually a multiplayer campaign takes one evening per week, say four hours of playing per week.

Most campaigns last from 1492/1520 till 1820, with an average of 20-30 years played per session.

So... are we looking at 4 hours a week, duration 3 to 5 months? That's not so time consuming.... Hmmmm

And it will be a fixed day of the week?
 
On Pedro X Henrique: I and Zyki3 voted for Pedro, RichardTheFirst voted for Henrique. Pedro stays.
On Jorge Álvares X Peres de Andrade: RichardTheFirst voted for Jorge Álvares. Jorge Álvares stays.

Seems that either people are not interested in this stuff or they simply trust our judgement. I won't delay this even more. Here is the list as it is right now.
If you don't agree with anything just let me know.

Changes done:
G. Velho Cabral is replacing Diogo de Silves just as before.
Pedro, Duke de Coimbra is replacing Avranches. I am not calling Pedro “Infante Pedro” as I fear that people who don’t understand Portuguese will think that Infante is his first name.
Covilhã had his stats downgraded, previously 6-3-3, now 6-2-2;
Azambuja is replacing Camões. I kept Camões dates for Azambuja as they are not wrong and making Azambuja appear earlier could unbalance a little. However, I decreased his manouver from six to four as this is enough to help colonization and his accomplishments can’t be compared to Almeida’s. His fire and shock were upgraded from 1-1 to 2-2.
Albuquerque gained siege value of 2. Previously 5-5-5-0, now 5-5-5-2.
I upgraded Francisco de Almeida’s rank from 6 to 1 but kept his deathdate as I think his lifetime was artificially enlarged for balance reasons. He also lost 1 siege value. Previously 6-4-5-2 rank 6, now 6-4-5-1 rank 1.
I changed the dates and stats of leader 09615 (previously Miguel C Real, now João da Nova) so that they correctly represent the new leader (previously 1500-03 and 5-3-3, now 1501-09 and 5-4-3).
I changed the dates and stats of leader 09617 (previously De Queros now Jorge Álvares) so that they correctly represent the new leader (previously 1515-30 and 4-3-3, now 1509-21 and 5-1-1). With his earlier dates he will need manouver 5 to reach China. As he (AFAIK) was no soldier, he is getting lower fire and shock.
I upgraded Martim Afonso de Sousa’s rank from 9 to 2 as he was governor in the East and in the West and commanded important battles.
Queirós is replacing Antonio Fernandes as in the previous list.
B. F. de Andrade is replacing Trant (dates were 1808-10 and now are 1807-09). I ahistorically decreased his rank from 0 to 1 so that he won’t eclipse Wellington just like in real life. For similar reasons I did the same with G. F. de Andrade.
Changed the dates and stats of leader 09636 (previously the second Álvares Botelho, now R. Freire de Andrade) to correctly fit the new leader (previously rank 1, 1655-80 and 4-3-2, now rank 2, 1612-33 and 4-2-3).

List:

# Military Leaders for Portugal #

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09600 }
category = general
name = "Nuno Álvares Pereira"
startdate = {
year=1385
}
deathdate = {
year = 1431
month = april
day = 1
}
rank = 1
movement = 4
fire = 4
shock = 5
siege = 0
remark = "The Holy Constable."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09601 }
category = explorer
name = "Gonçalo Velho Cabral"
startdate = {
year=1425
}
deathdate = {
year=1435
}
rank = 10
movement = 2
fire = 1
shock = 1
siege = 0
remark = "Discovered the Azores."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09602 }
category = explorer
name = "Gil Eanes"
startdate = {
year=1433
}
deathdate = {
year=1448
}
rank = 10
movement = 2
fire = 1
shock = 1
siege = 0
remark = "Passed the Bojador Cape."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09603 }
category = general
name = "Pedro, Duke de Coimbra"
startdate = {
year=1435
}
deathdate = {
year=1449
}
rank = 2
movement = 3
fire = 3
shock = 3
siege = 0
remark = "Regent during Afonso V’s minority."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09604 }
category = monarch
name = "Afonso V"
startdate = {
year=1446
}
deathdate = {
year=1481
}
rank = 0
movement = 3
fire = 3
shock = 2
siege = 1
remark = "Took Tangiers."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09605 }
category = explorer
name = "Fernão do Pó"
startdate = {
year=1469
}
deathdate = {
year=1481
}
rank = 10
movement = 3
fire = 1
shock = 1
siege = 0
remark = "Discovered the island and explored Gulf of Guinea."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09606 }
category = explorer
name = "Diogo Cão"
startdate = {
year=1480
}
deathdate = {
year=1486
}
rank = 10
movement = 3
fire = 1
shock = 1
siege = 0
remark = "Discovered Angola and Congo."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09607 }
category = conquistador
name = "Pêro da Covilhã"
startdate = {
year=1486
}
deathdate = {
year=1527
}
rank = 9
movement = 6
fire = 2
shock = 2
siege = 0
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09608 }
category = explorer
name = "Bartolomeu Dias"
startdate = {
year=1487
}
deathdate = {
year=1500
}
rank = 5
movement = 6
fire = 2
shock = 2
siege = 0
remark = "Rounded the Cape of Good Hope."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09609 }
category = explorer
name = "Vasco da Gama"
startdate = {
year=1497
month=july
day = 7
}
deathdate = {
year=1510
}
rank = 2
movement = 6
fire = 2
shock = 2
siege = 0
remark = "Discovered the maritime way to India."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09610 }
category = conquistador
name = "Diogo de Azambuja"
startdate = {
year=1497
}
deathdate = {
year=1512
}
rank = 1
movement = 4
fire = 2
shock = 2
siege = 0
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09611 }
category = conquistador
name = "Afonso de Albuquerque"
startdate = {
year=1499
}
deathdate = {
year=1515
}
rank = 1
movement = 5
fire = 5
shock = 5
siege = 2
remark = "The Great Conqueror."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09612 }
category = explorer
name = "Pedro Álvares Cabral"
startdate = {
year=1500
}
deathdate = {
year=1502
}
rank = 6
movement = 5
fire = 2
shock = 2
siege = 0
remark = "Discovered Brazil."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09613 }
category = conquistador
name = "Francisco de Almeida"
startdate = {
year=1500
}
deathdate = {
year=1520
}
rank = 1
movement = 6
fire = 4
shock = 5
siege = 1
remark = "First Viceroy of India."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09614 }
category = explorer
name = "Gaspar Corte-Real"
startdate = {
year=1500
month = May
day = 11
}
deathdate = {
year=1503
}
rank = 2
movement = 5
fire = 3
shock = 3
siege = 0
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09615 }
category = explorer
name = "João da Nova"
startdate = {
year=1501
}
deathdate = {
year=1509
}
rank = 3
movement = 5
fire = 4
shock = 3
siege = 0
remark = "Discovered Ascension and Sta-Helena islands; won Cananor battle."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09616 }
category = conquistador
name = "António Correia""
startdate = {
year=1509
}
deathdate = {
year=1527
}
rank = 1
movement = 5
fire = 5
shock = 5
siege = 0
remark = "Conquered Bahrain."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09617 }
category = explorer
name = "Jorge Álvares"
startdate = {
year=1509
}
deathdate = {
year=1521
}
rank = 5
movement = 5
fire = 1
shock = 1
siege = 0
remark = "First known Portuguese to reach China."
}
historicalleader = {
category = conquistador
id = { type = 6 id = 09618 }
name = "Francisco Xavier"
startdate = {
year=1525
}
deathdate = {
year=1555
}
rank = 1
movement = 6
fire = 1
shock = 1
siege = 0
remark = "Made a saint after his death."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09619 }
category = conquistador
name = "Martim Afonso de Sousa"
startdate = {
year=1530
}
deathdate = {
year=1564
}
rank = 2
movement = 4
fire = 3
shock = 3
siege = 0
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09620 }
category = conquistador
name = "Mem de Sá"
startdate = {
year=1540
}
deathdate = {
year=1560
}
rank = 2
movement = 5
fire = 4
shock = 5
siege = 2
remark = "Governor of Brazil."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09621 }
category = general
name = "António, Prior do Crato"
startdate = {
year=1578
}
deathdate = {
year=1593
}
rank = 1
movement = 3
fire = 3
shock = 2
siege = 0
remark = "Acclaimed King to oppose the Spannish king. Fought several battles against him."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09622 }
category = explorer
name = "Pedro Fernandes Queirós"
startdate = {
year=1602
}
deathdate = {
year=1624
}
rank = 9
movement = 4
fire = 1
shock = 1
siege = 0
remark = "Discovered several Indonesian and Polinesian Islands."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09623 }
category = conquistador
name = "Pedro Teixeira"
startdate = {
year=1616
}
deathdate = {
year=1640
}
rank = 4
movement = 4
fire = 2
shock = 2
siege = 0
remark = "Explored Amazonia and fought British and Spanish."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09624 }
category = general
name = "Schomberg"
startdate = {
year=1659
}
deathdate = {
year=1668
}
rank = 2
movement = 4
fire = 2
shock = 2
siege = 0
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09625 }
category = general
name = "António Luís de Sousa"
startdate = {
year=1700
}
deathdate = {
year=1720
}
rank = 1
movement = 3
fire = 2
shock = 2
siege = 0
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09626 }
category = general
name = "Gomes Freire de Andrade"
startdate = {
year=1800
}
deathdate = {
year=1813
}
rank = 1
movement = 3
fire = 3
shock = 2
siege = 0
remark = "Commander of the Portuguese troops serving Napoleon."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09627 }
category = general
name = "Bernardim Freire de Andrade"
startdate = {
year=1807
}
deathdate = {
year=1809
}
rank = 1
movement = 3
fire = 2
shock = 3
siege = 0
remark = "Field-Marshall. Commander of one of Wellesley's wings."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09628 }
name = "Martim Afonso de Castro"
category = admiral
rank = 4
fire = 4
shock = 4
movement = 5
startdate = { year = 1585 month = january day = 0 }
deathdate = { year = 1610 month = january day = 0 }
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09629 }
name = "Álvaro de Menezes"
category = admiral
rank = 1
fire = 3
shock = 3
movement = 3
startdate = { year = 1585 month = january day = 0 }
deathdate = { year = 1609 month = february day = 6 }
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09635 }
name = "Nuno Álvares Botelho"
category = admiral
rank = 1
fire = 3
shock = 2
movement = 4
startdate = { year = 1625 month = january day = 0 }
deathdate = { year = 1650 month = january day = 0 }
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09636 }
name = "Rui Freire de Andrade"
category = admiral
rank = 2
fire = 2
shock = 3
movement = 4
startdate = { year = 1612 month = january day = 0 }
deathdate = { year = 1633 month = january day = 0 }
remark = "Commander of the expedition to fortify Queshm."
}
historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 09637 }
name = "Francisco Pereira da Silva"
category = admiral
rank = 3
fire = 3
shock = 2
movement = 4
startdate = { year = 1685 month = december day = 0 }
deathdate = { year = 1720 month = february day = 30 }
}
# Ids free to 09629
 
Last edited:
Here are my suggestions for additions and the reasons why I'm in favour of their addition. Obviously it's a matter of personal choice in between several possible leaders. If anyone disagrees just say it.

In order of preference:

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 096000 }
name = "Nuno da Cunha"
category = conquistador
rank = 2
fire = 2
shock = 3
movement = 4
siege = 1
startdate = { year = 1529 month = december day = 0 }
deathdate = { year = 1539 month = february day = 30 }
remark = "Governor of India."
}

In his way to India he destroyed Mombaça as its ruler was attacking the Portuguese allies. He failed to conquer Diu in 1523 (as a general) and 1531, but in 1535 he was rewarded with it for having helped Cambaia (in Gujarat region) against the Mughals. Cambaia tried to retake it in 1538 but was defeated and had Bahdur, its king, killed. In 1529 he conquered Baçaim (now Vasai, India). In 1534 (according to some sources, 1529) he sent a successful expedition (commanded by António Silveira) that sacked Damão and destroyed its shipyard, the major one in that area, resulting in an even stronger Portuguese sea control. He successfully supported Bhuvanaikabhu in the dynastic conflict in Ceylon. He established the fortresses of Diu, Baçaim, and Chale, and some settlements in the east coast of India. IMHO there are really good historical reasons for his inclusion. Some Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuno_da_Cunha; http://www.arqnet.pt/dicionario/cunha_nuno1.html; http://www.sergiosakall.com.br/asiatico/india-portuguesa.htm; http://www.aquimaria.com/html/forum-Ceilao.html; http://www.san.beck.org/2-9-MughalEmpire1526-1707.html#7;

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 096001 }
name = "Matias de Albuquerque"
category = general
rank = 1
fire = 3
shock = 3
movement = 3
startdate = { year = 1639 }
deathdate = { year = 1644 }
remark = "Fought the Spanish in the Portuguese independence war."
}

Was made Governor of Brazil after the Dutch seized Salvador (the capital city) in 1624, organized the military expedition which recovered the city one year later. He was then left in charge of organizing the defences of Pernambuco, but his limited resources weren’t enough to prevent its conquest by the Dutch when they came with full force in 1630. He fled to the countryside were he organized a guerrilla very successful in the beginning but later forced to retreat by superior Dutch forces. Victim of intrigues in the court, he was summoned to return to Portugal where he was charged for loosing Pernambuco. With the Restauração (restoration of Portuguese independence) movement he was freed and made commander of the Portuguese troops. He led the Portuguese in the major victory at Montijo (in 1644) and some minor battles. Here is a link with a description of Montijo Battle http://www.arqnet.pt/portal/historiografia/ericeira_montijo.html ; .
If you don’t understand Portuguese, it says that the battle was fought in a terrain suitable for cavalry, the Portuguese had 6k infantry, 1.1k cavalry, and 6 pieces of artillery; the Spanish had 6k infantry, 2.5k cavalry, and 2 pieces of artillery. The Spanish marched towards the Portuguese, the Portuguese made good use of their artillery alternating between canister and regular ammunition, the Spanish couldn’t cause many damage with their artillery, the Spanish cavalry routed the entire Portuguese army, most of the Portuguese cavalry retreated. Matias de Albuquerque managed to regroup a small cavalry force (60) and most of the infantry, recharged while the Spanish were distracted with pillage, retook the artillery and won the battle. The Portuguese lost 900 men and the Spanish more than 3k. A very peculiar battle. :wacko: He was later made Count da Ericeira
Apart from the historic reasons, it would be nice Portugal having a leader to help secure its independence at this time, just reminding, this is the time Spain gets the National Revolt in Portugal Event. With this lifetime and stats he shouldn’t damage the balance.

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 096002 }
name = "António Raposo Tavares"
category = conquistador
rank = 6
fire = 2
shock = 2
movement = 4
siege = 0
startdate = { year = 1628 }
deathdate = { year = 1651 }
remark = "Conquered most of the Guairá missions and explored Western Brazil."
}

Raposo Tavares was a bandeirante. For the ones not familiar with Portuguese&Brazilian history, the bandeirantes led the bandeiras which were private military expeditions originally from São Vicente/São Paulo province, but later spread all over Brazil. Obviously their purpose was profit. There were three types of bandeiras: the ones which captured natives to be enslaved or forest goods to be sold, the ones which searched for minerals and precious stones, and the ones contracted to attack particular targets, like missions, quilombos (fugitive slave’s communities), or foreign forces, pretty much like mercenaries. As a result of their action, minerals and precious stones were discovered, most of the Spanish/Guarani missions east of Paraná River were destroyed or abandoned, leaving the land empty and ready for Portuguese settlement, landowners had no lack of cheap manpower in a time where some of the Portuguese slave centers in Africa were in Dutch hands, the Portuguese settlement moved westwards, ignoring Tordesillas Treaty and giving Brazil its current shape, and the interaction in between the Brazilian Provinces increased. Currently there is no Bandeirante in the Portuguese file.
Raposo Tavares led several bandeiras against the Guairá (modern Paraná Estate in Brazil), the Tape (modern Rio Grande do Sul and Uruguay), and Itatim missions (modern Mato Grosso do Sul). Before 1628 there were more than ten missions in the Guairá, after 1631 there were only two. In 1648/51 he led an impressive expedition where one of his objectives was to reach Potosi from the east. He started in São Paulo, passed through Mato Grossso do Sul, Mato Grosso, Rondonia, Amazonas, followed the Amazon River up to Belém (obviously he had already given up on Potosi), and returned by sea to São Paulo Province. This expedition linked the Paraná/Plate with the Amazon Region. Exaggerating a little, that’s the Brazilian equivalent to Magellan’s voyage.
It’s necessary to have at least one bandeirante, and Raposo Tavares is IMHO the most significant, and with these stats, almost equivalent to a random conquistador, he shouldn’t damage the balance. Some links: http://www.geocities.com/bandeiras99/missoes.html; http://www.geocities.com/bandeiras99/preacao.htm; http://www.cartoes.net/historia/missoes3b.htm (this link has a continuation into others); http://www.multirio.rj.gov.br/historia/modulo01/band_apres.html; http://www.bvp.org.py/biblio_htm/boccia/capitulo_4.htm; http://www.bvp.org.py/biblio_htm/rivarola/riv_iv_vi.htm;

EDIT:added leader ids
 
Last edited:
Congratulations, seems you got a better file and at a glance I agree with everything. I need some time to see it with more detail but it seems very nice.

Some minor suggestions in the little time I have now: Remark for Afonso de Albuquerque "The Great Conqueror", remark for António, Prior do Crato "Acclaimed King to oppose the Spannish king, fought several battles against him.", remark for D.Pedro "Regent during Afonso V’s minority."

I specially agree with Tavares addition, in my oppinion he should be in the file even if replacing anybody... The other 2 seem like very good additions too.
 
RichardTheFirst said:
So... are we looking at 4 hours a week, duration 3 to 5 months? That's not so time consuming.... Hmmmm
And it will be a fixed day of the week?

It seems there is already a good group of friends playing on wednesdays nights, probably the time will be 19:00-23:00
I need December month to prepare the starting file and end recruitment with last roster.
The start could be around 2nd week of January, so You've time to set Your affairs and be free for the long GC.
 
I enjoy your leaders file for Portugal :)

the game seems to be better
thank you