• 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.
Garbon said:
In that case, and I know it is beyond the role of this thread, but is there any use in having them with a tag? As in, without the 1520 start, we have them only as a possible revolter till 1530.
Yes, it should be discussed in MesoAmerican thread but why have them as revolter then and tag could be reused for... new map ( :D )?

EDIT: continued in corresponding regional thread.
 
Last edited:
I have redone my Excel file about the problem in the known provinces in different scenarios, based on the 1.51 beta 6.

I could easily made the corrections in the scenarios 1520 and 1648, if we agree that the scenario 1419 is OK. Also, I could test my program about the change in the known provinces. I mean my program for the new map. ;)

WHat do you think ?
 
About consistency in DP settings of each scenario, the 1648 scenario lacks policy = {... } in every country inc file. In this last scenario the countries probably use the default settings of 1419 included in country.csv...
At least for major countries there should be some sort of fine tuning according to the DP moves had by event in the historical path!
A big reworking it seems... :(
 
Aegnor said:
I have redone my Excel file about the problem in the known provinces in different scenarios, based on the 1.51 beta 6.

I could easily made the corrections in the scenarios 1520 and 1648, if we agree that the scenario 1419 is OK. Also, I could test my program about the change in the known provinces. I mean my program for the new map. ;)

WHat do you think ?
I fully agree... I can't do all changes by hand alone (reordering events files is not far behind...). And if it helps testing tools for new map, then... :)

Rule is if a province is known in 1419, it should be known for same country (but maybe not same tag) in 1520 (+ added provinces for 1520). Same logic between 1520 and 1648 with revised 1520.
I just have to not make changes in 1520 and 1648 beta6 inc files until I have revised version.
 
Bordic said:
About consistency in DP settings of each scenario, the 1648 scenario lacks policy = {... } in every country inc file. In this last scenario the countries probably use the default settings of 1419 included in country.csv...
At least for major countries there should be some sort of fine tuning according to the DP moves had by event in the historical path!
A big reworking it seems... :(
I noticed that too... I keep track of changes for provinces now (including population with special tool made by Aegnor but not modified in scenarios because of EU2 growth rate not really the same as in real History). Same "should" be done for countries and DP settings...
Structure of manpower/income xls files is available on Languish. Same structure could be used for DP with tags instead of province_ids!
 
YodaMaster said:
I fully agree... I can't do all changes by hand alone (reordering events files is not far behind...). And if it helps testing tools for new map, then... :)

Rule is if a province is known in 1419, it should be known for same country (but maybe not same tag) in 1520 (+ added provinces for 1520). Same logic between 1520 and 1648 with revised 1520.
I just have to not make changes in 1520 and 1648 beta6 inc files until I have revised version.

Done for 1520.
I have corrected some bugs in my program. Works very fine now! :)
 
I am checking core between the scenario 1419 and 1520.

Poland has a core in Masovia in 1419 but not in 1520. And Poland gains this core between 1525 and 1596 by inheriting Masovia. I think we should delete the core in the scenario 1419.
What do you think ?
 
Aegnor said:
I am checking core between the scenario 1419 and 1520.

Poland has a core in Masovia in 1419 but not in 1520. And Poland gains this core between 1525 and 1596 by inheriting Masovia. I think we should delete the core in the scenario 1419.
What do you think ?

I think a core on masovia in 1419 is justified as masovia is historically part of the kingdom of poland (just as france has cores on the lands of orleans and bourbon even before they are absorbed into the crown)

If the core is removed an event should be written in which poland gets a core on masovia should it be taken by someone else (the teutonic order most likely) as they would certainly claim it back should their vassal be annexed by someone else
 
In this case, better have the core in 1419 (I agree with sabular's argument and Masovia is "only" a duchy), add it in 1520 and remove unnecessary command with inheritance of Masovia.
 
sabular said:
can I also report all culture/religion changes as bugfixes or should they be submitted?
Already done! See post #232 in 1.50 Bugs thread.

EDIT: Mayas are still a problem... See Mesoamerican thread.
 
Last edited:
sabular said:
but those are only the changes to spanish colonies in the 1648 scenario, not the portuguese in 1520 and 1648 or the dutch in 1648.
See post #1 in Compiling 1.51. Everything should have been addressed in Bugfixes but perhaps I have forgotten something.
-fixed Dutch and Portuguese colonies for religion and culture in 1520 and 1648 scenarios
 
Last edited: