Tordesillas?

[celedhring]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem

I do agree that some linkage of future leaders to the major amalgamation events (or not) would be good. I would really like to see a series of events happening when Colombus tries to sell his idea of the New World around. Maybe Genoa gets a chance to acquire Colombus first if it can afford the cost of the expedition?

The problem is that every player knows were America is, so where Columbus ends serving is rather meaningless. And even if AI Genoa ends getting Columbus, he'll waste it wandering on the Mediterranean, while Spain will take Pinzón or whatever other leader and take it to Cuba anyway.

 

[Derek Pullem]

From my experience in EU1 and from what I've seen in the beta the AI explorers are more or less preprogrammed on their route anyway. The only variable is which provinces they discover.

So Genoa might get the chance to discover America. What they would do with it is anyones guess. Now if Columbus had worked for Portugal instead......

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
Lets say that Castille has fought several wars aginast Portugal, Navarre and Aragon prior to the "Create Spain" event. These three countries are reduced to 1-2 provinces each. Wouldn't Castille take on the mantle of Spain anyway, irrespective of the status of the other "minors".

Well-no. They wouldn't. The suggestion is in fact almost utter nonsense. Christian Spain had had "hegemon" states before, and they'd never bothered chnaging their name. The adoption of "Spain" was caused by specific circumstances, the union of two of the remaining three powers of the peninsula. In fact, it was a way of ensuring the unity by separating "Spanish" history from the history of the preceding states. Castile alone would have made the name change one time in a hundred, or one time in a thousand, if that.

The same factor affects you ideas on the leader list. If Castille occupies most of Aragon's territories shouldn't they get most of Aragon's leaders?

Just call them exiles. I've never been in favour of "province basing" leaders. I have been in favour of an annexer getting a small and random proportion of an annexed nation's leaders, but that's a different issue.

So, no-they shouldn't.

I do agree that some linkage of future leaders to the major amalgamation events (or not) would be good. I would really like to see a series of events happening when Colombus tries to sell his idea of the New World around. Maybe Genoa gets a chance to acquire Colombus first if it can afford the cost of the expedition?

I've suggested a "support Coulumbus" event for Portugal myself. The AI having a 95% chance to say no or something. That would be really historical and allow Portugal a potential advantage over its' larger neighbour.

 

[unmerged(3434)]

I think this thread lacks something: the experience of what really happens in the game.
When EU2 ships, this will be one of the hottest themes, i believe, like the one regarding leaders that don't show up.

I'm convinced that some leaders should show up, in a way or another, such like Cristoforo Colombo, that was a Genoese explorer.
If Spain wasn't there, he would have gone for somebody else...maybe portugal,maybe the Papal States
(there's a legend that Colombo had already discovered the new lands in a mission for pope Innocent VIII, that died in 1492.On his tomb is written that under his rule,with his will, the new world was discovered. well.. I'd put this on the same shelf where you can find those "Atlantis" books )

 

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by Agelastus


Well-no. They wouldn't. The suggestion is in fact almost utter nonsense. Christian Spain had had "hegemon" states before, and they'd never bothered chnaging their name. The adoption of "Spain" was caused by specific circumstances, the union of two of the remaining three powers of the peninsula. In fact, it was a way of ensuring the unity by separating "Spanish" history from the history of the preceding states. Castile alone would have made the name change one time in a hundred, or one time in a thousand, if that.



Just call them exiles. I've never been in favour of "province basing" leaders. I have been in favour of an annexer getting a small and random proportion of an annexed nation's leaders, but that's a different issue.

So, no-they shouldn't.



I've suggested a "support Coulumbus" event for Portugal myself. The AI having a 95% chance to say no or something. That would be really historical and allow Portugal a potential advantage over its' larger neighbour.

Spain - ok we disagree on this one. The game concept of Spain is that one nation in the iberian peninsula evolves into what we recognise as spain today. If the leader files were heavily modded (see below) then the Create Spain event could be limited to a temporary dynastic alliance.

Leaders - that's also a bit of a fudge Mind you it's one I would support but the coding is not insignificant. It won't be in first patch I guarantee and may not be in until one kind soul sits down and does most of the work. Volunteers?

Colombus - yeah but I'd prefer itt went something like

"Do you (Spain) want to sponsor Colombus

A - Yes. Cost 200 ducats. (85%)
B - No. Activate Portuguese event

Do you (Portugal) want to sponsor Columbus

A - No. Activate Genoese event
B - Yes Cost 200 ducats (chance 0.15*0.15 = 2% approx)

Do you (Genoa) want to sponsor Columbus

A- No. Give Columbus to Spain anyway (private backing 0.15*0.85*0.85 = 11% approx)
B - Yes Cost 200 ducats (0.15*0.85*0.15 = 2%)

The order is not historical I know but is weighted to give player spain a good chance (85% costs 200 ducats, 11% for free, 2% portugal, 2% genoa)

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
Spain - ok we disagree on this one. The game concept of Spain is that one nation in the iberian peninsula evolves into what we recognise as spain today. If the leader files were heavily modded (see below) then the Create Spain event could be limited to a temporary dynastic alliance.

But the game concept appears to revolve around the creation of a "hegemon" state, rather than the actual cause of a political union. Spain had had a hegemon Christian state before, following the collapse of the Umayyid Caliphate and before the Muslims invited the Almoravids into the country. Most if not all of the Christian and Muslim states of the peninsula were paying tribute (ie. were vassals) of the kings of Castile and Leon. Your (or the game's) definition, in fact. No "Spain" or similar name, though............

Well, anyway, roll on the "patches"................

 

[unmerged(3434)]

Nice example Derek: Colombo was a mercenary going for the highest bidder, like every Italian

 

[unmerged(3440)]

Well, in fact some Leonese king took the title Emperor of Hispania

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Gorion
Well, in fact some Leonese king took the title Emperor of Hispania

That was just his title though (I know the two were often interchangeable in the period) I believe, rather than a formal change of the overriding entities. It was an expression of power over other kingdoms rather than a symbolisation of unity.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I think we all agree the name is unimportant.

The discussion really centres on the assumption that a "Spain" should (must?) form in EU2. It doesn't have to but if it doesn't then Castille / Aragon are rather sterile to play.

As we have discussed this can all be solved by increasing dramatically the number of conditional events (If no Spain then.....). But as these events aren't there, not least because there isn't a historical precedent to follow, the game will work better if it is guided to produce a "Spain".

Whether Paradox will do these historical what ifs or whether it will leave it to the EU community I don't know.

The big plus of EU2 is that the engine is there to be modded. So if they don't we can

 

[Petrarca]

So, if I want to be an Aragonese Spain (the only way to get good leaders), I, with my Portugese co-conspirators, have to go to war with Castile twice and successfully annex Madrid?

 

[unmerged(4868)]

every time I see this topic, I get hungry for mexican food....

spelling is a lot like tortillas

 

[unmerged(598)]

The decision to stick to 1 leader file for all scenarios is a little disapointing. Without adding events to every leader in every file, it will be impossible to create scenerios which significantly alter the leader files.

 

[unmerged(3440)]

spelling is a lot like tortillas

It's tortitas.

 

[unmerged(5934)]

Making use of my extense and deep historical knowledge, I will say to you that 'tortitas' and 'tortillas' are different things. 'Tortillas' are made of eggs, and optionally you can add ham, cheese, onions, potatos, etc, etc, while 'tortitas' are made of flour (not necessarily wheat). In Spain we eat a lot of 'tortillas', while 'tortitas' are more an american thing...

 

[unmerged(5934)]

I just remembered: I think that in Mexico they call 'tortillas' to 'tortitas'. I don't know their word for 'tortillas'. Man, I love this kind of problems (wasn't Bernard Shaw who said that Irish and English are two peoples separated by a common language? )

 

[Agelastus]

It may have been someone who said that "Americans and English are two people separated by a common language" or something.

I don't particularly like Mexican food, stodgy Brit that I am...................so something more about "Tordesillas" please?

Or Spanish unification..................

 

[unmerged(5934)]

Nothing, apart from a commentary: ToT will always involve Spain and Portugal, because having the explorers they will almost always be number 1 and 2... and that's what I don't like about historic leaders, that they set a course of events and is next to impossible to alter it. If I am playing, for example, the Knights of Rhodes, or the Kingdom of Jerusalem, I won't be able to confront the historic states that have all the explorers, generals and admirals!

But I must admit that I have no alternative to offer (everyone loves historic leaders, including me).

 

[Havard]

Originally posted by Alatriste
Nothing, apart from a commentary: ToT will always involve Spain and Portugal, because having the explorers they will almost always be number 1 and 2... and that's what I don't like about historic leaders, that they set a course of events and is next to impossible to alter it. If I am playing, for example, the Knights of Rhodes, or the Kingdom of Jerusalem, I won't be able to confront the historic states that have all the explorers, generals and admirals!

But I must admit that I have no alternative to offer (everyone loves historic leaders, including me).

Well, one thing in EU2 is that you can, via the DP settings, inflict on the stats on your default leaders, and thereby sometimes get generic leaders better to your strategy then a half-good historic one...

 

[unmerged(3440)]

I don't see the Knights discovering, exploring and colonizing the New World anyway