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)?
-
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.
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...
In the 1648 scenario, Holland has not yet discovered many provinces where she has colonies (the northern coast of south America, the US east coast, Indonesia). Additionally, Holland does not have Frisian culture. Also Erz belongs to Saxony but Reichenberg, the city in Erz, was not a Saxon posession then.
I think this is the best thread for this.
Is there any attempt to have consistency on dp changes across the scenarios? As far as I can tell, the Ottomans start off with quality 3 and then via event get +3 before 1520. However, our 1520 scenario starts them off with Quality = 9.
Is there any attempt to have consistency on dp changes across the scenarios? As far as I can tell, the Ottomans start off with quality 3 and then via event get +3 before 1520. However, our 1520 scenario starts them off with Quality = 9.
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...
-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...
YodaMaster said:
Garbon said:Agreed.
OK, OK...
o I will search tomorrow about DP sliders !
NB : known provinces and core already send to Yoda...
I know... Update for 1.50 will be needed.Aegnor said:NB : known provinces and core already send to Yoda...
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?
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...
1) List of provinces that became unknown between 2 scenarios (Excel file 1)
This list recapitulate all the differences between 2 scenarios for the known provinces based on the "old" scenario (1419-1520 / 1419-1648 / 1520-1648 but not 1520-1419)
That means that several countries know some provinces in the 1419 scenario, but not in the scenario 1520 or 1648. There are a lot of problems in the scenario 1648. For exemple, Venice knows Iveria (472), Armenia (473) and Azerbaijan (487) in the scenario 1419 but not in the scenario 1520. But, the same Venice knows Basrah (508), North Atlantic Drift (869 & 870), Norwegian Sea (872) in 1419 but not in 1648, while knowing Iveria, Armenia and Azerbaidjan again ... :wacko:
Changes to apply are simple if we presume that the known provinces are properly parametrized in the scenario 1419.
2) List of DP_Sliders (Excel file 2)
This list recapitulate for each country the dp sliders at the beginning of each scenario and the events that have a dp slider change in the action_a.
There are about 2500 command lines that change dp slider in AGCEEP (for only action_a), but there are very few changes in the scenarios 1520 and 1648.
A lot of corrections is needed.
3) List of core provinces (Excel file 3)
This list recapitulate the change of core province between 2 scenarios and the events that have a addcore/removecore in the action_a.
For exemple, for Ayutthaya:
Ayutthaya has Perak (676) in core province in 1419 but not in 1520
Ayutthaya has Kwai (674) in core province in 1520 but not in 1419
There is no event for Ayutthaya that changes the core province (except one that fire in 1775), so there is a problem. If we are sure that the scenario 1419 is correct, so the changes to apply are easy.
I hope I'm clear in what I said (
o ).
The cultures/religions of colonies in the 1520 scenario are mostly (entirely?) still the original province cultures/religions. For example the cape verde islands are a portuguese city with 1000 inhabitants but they are senegambian pagans instead of portuguese catholics as they should be.
In the 1648 scenario this does not seem to be a big a problem, although I think I saw a number of individual cases that were wrong.
I will try to assemble a list of possible errors today
In the 1648 scenario this does not seem to be a big a problem, although I think I saw a number of individual cases that were wrong.
I will try to assemble a list of possible errors today
the following provinces in the 1520 scenario have wrong culture/religion. All are portuguese colonies (or cities) so they should all have portuguese culture and catholic religion:
diamentia
cape verde
senegal
leone
nampuia
mtawa
timor
ceram
I also noted that the 1520 scenario has the maya's in provinces that are uncolonised in the 1419 campaign, WAD?
diamentia
cape verde
senegal
leone
nampuia
mtawa
timor
ceram
I also noted that the 1520 scenario has the maya's in provinces that are uncolonised in the 1419 campaign, WAD?
the following provinces in the 1648 scenario should be portuguese/catholic:
amapa
parnaiba
nampuia
mtawa
niassa
the following provinces should be dutch/reformed:
mauritius (city is bourbon, not right I guess)
manado
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
amapa
parnaiba
nampuia
mtawa
niassa
the following provinces should be dutch/reformed:
mauritius (city is bourbon, not right I guess)
manado
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
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:
I don't know the reason...sabular said:
Ok for other changes.
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:
Last edited:
YodaMaster said:
the wikipedia article you linked to mentioned the population around 1648 as being approximately 100, including a lot of slaves from madagascar, so I think this can definitely be called a tradepost
YodaMaster said:
from a quick wikipedia check it seems that the maya would be even less worthy of representation in 1520 then in 1419 (the yucatan revolt of 1450 further decentralized the maya) and I certainly think fierce natives can very well represent spanish difficulties with colonization
Lvl3 TP for Mauritius in 1648 scenario (bugfix...) and Mayas removed from 1520 scenario (to be submitted) then.
Last edited:
YodaMaster 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.