Is it normal to have Navarra country in Navarra province in 1419 (with Foix country in Bearn) and have Navarra country in Bearn in 1520 (and Navarra province owned by Spain and also core of Spain)?
Thanks for the precision.Captain Frakas said:In 1512, Ferdinand of Aragon, taked the control of "spanish" navarra... But with the help of Francois Ier of France, the kingdom of Navarra remain independant in the "french" navarra...
YodaMaster said:A database could be very helpful...
Garbon said:Agreed.
I know... Update for 1.50 will be needed.Aegnor said:NB : known provinces and core already send to Yoda...
the inheritance take place in 1527 exactlyYodaMaster said:About Bourbonnais, with new events by Ribbon, this "state" will be inherited in 1540 (or so).
Should Boubonnais be in 1520 scenario? Which setup and relation with France? Vassalized and in alliance?
OK, I checked the files for the scenarios consistency:YodaMaster said:ToDo list:
-policies
-cores
-population
-known provinces (to be checked)
-religion in provinces (to be checked)
Up to date:
-income
-manpower
But bugs in events for income in some provinces
A database could be very helpful...
Thanks!sabular said:I will try to assemble a list of possible errors today
Problem is Dutch leaved the island and French finally really colonized it. Maybe a lvl3 TP could represent "non permanent" situation. See here and here. Only remaining "stuffs" from Dutch period is "Fort Frederick Hendrick" ruins (see here).sabular said:mauritius (city is bourbon, not right I guess)
I don't know the reason...sabular said:at least the following provinces should be castillian/catholic
jujuy
talca
the following former inca provinces are still andean/pagan. Most of the other former inca provinces are castillian/catholic so I think they should be changed, but perhaps there is a reason for this?
montana
huanco
atalaya
manu
taqari
titicaca
tucuman
I don't understand why this country should be here in 1520 and not in 1419 or vice-versa. But if they aren't represented in 1419, they shouldn't be here in 1520 for same reason. I'm not sure but maybe it is because Mayas were organized in city states with no central power => no real "EU2" country.sabular said:I also noted that the 1520 scenario has the maya's in provinces that are uncolonised in the 1419 campaign, WAD?
YodaMaster said:
YodaMaster said:I don't understand why this country should be here in 1520 and not in 1419 or vice-versa. But if they aren't represented in 1419, they shouldn't be here in 1520 for same reason. I'm not sure but maybe it is because Mayas were organized in city states with no central power => no real "EU2" country.
YodaMaster said:Lvl3 TP for Mauritius in 1648 scenario (bugfix...) and Mayas removed from 1520 scenario (to be submitted) then.