-
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.
very very true and it goes way back
yet hal has always been a great player never afraid of trying something "new"
as far as i noticed the map/mod has still not been choosen. and my estimation are based on the vanilla one of course, the only map to date that holds any possible interest to me when it comes to an even a remotelly historical secanrio. yes the kasperus, extrawatck, watckboi, my map, all look "cool" i give it that, but they need lots and lots of work (and then some more). however if i would have to choose from the above, it would be the "extrawatck" wich at least has a very balanced historical tax/manpower distribution( in general), for varied mp paths .
i hope the new agceep map will turn better then expected, especially if it will be released after the eu2 code will be modified first.
Last edited:
ok, so it's been decided.
oe will have even a n easier time
...faster naval possible build up, once thrace taken... nothing stops oe from peacing byz and take the former's only extra province, and then dow again the next month to annex regardless if at war with mameluks or not. stability costs are irrelevant at that stage. and after it can expand easilly against the other minors, while at war with mameluks, if that nation choose and attempts to try make oe expansion difficult earlly on. within 3-4 years oe can match the venice navy by having 4 provinces( taken quick at start from multiple wars) to built in more the 2-3 galleys each.or maybe there is a new rule where can not dow ai while having truce? does venice starts with a shypiard in this mod? ( i forgat , but it dhould not, the shypiard shall come in 1450's at earliest via event).
Last edited:
Does it really matter for the AI though? I thought the rule was there for the sole purpose of disabling people being screwed with constant re-dows after wars. But sure, why not? I don't see any reason to allow nor disallow it though.
Speaking of rules, I want a more explicit ruling on force-peace when there are gangs and/or alliances fighting eachother. Aladar, you were part of coming up with the rules I made in Watkabaoi MP, so if you agree with those, perhaps copy them?
Now there has been a lot of input and it's time to make a little follow up to see what should be used and which not.
Scenario: It'll still be the 1419 watk campaign, with edits to the religion, adj-defs (straits file) and likely to the provinse.csv file this time also.
It's been suggested that North Africa be made European for manpower purpuses, and also so that Mameluks will be able to hire mercs.
These provinses would include Morocco, Algiers, Tunesia and all medd coastal provinses in Mameluks. (see Uni I campaign)
This will require that the Portugal strait be removed, since they can get support and manpower from these provinses now.
Having Portugal played, will require historical leaders, since they are in a really bad position if they don't get the early advantage of those.
Thus will nations like Holland, Denmark, Venice and Mameluks get a generation of great leaders made prior to the gamestart, to even it out a bit.
Land/Naval will be locked so all nations start with Land 5.
The idea of not allowed OE access to Persian provinses till 150-200 years into the campaign might be introduced again.
Breaking truce against both human and ai players will be introduced.
Instead of having the usual issues of who can forcepeace who, perhaps simply banning alliances? How does everyone feel about this?
Scenario: It'll still be the 1419 watk campaign, with edits to the religion, adj-defs (straits file) and likely to the provinse.csv file this time also.
It's been suggested that North Africa be made European for manpower purpuses, and also so that Mameluks will be able to hire mercs.
These provinses would include Morocco, Algiers, Tunesia and all medd coastal provinses in Mameluks. (see Uni I campaign)
This will require that the Portugal strait be removed, since they can get support and manpower from these provinses now.
Having Portugal played, will require historical leaders, since they are in a really bad position if they don't get the early advantage of those.
Thus will nations like Holland, Denmark, Venice and Mameluks get a generation of great leaders made prior to the gamestart, to even it out a bit.
Land/Naval will be locked so all nations start with Land 5.
The idea of not allowed OE access to Persian provinses till 150-200 years into the campaign might be introduced again.
Breaking truce against both human and ai players will be introduced.
Instead of having the usual issues of who can forcepeace who, perhaps simply banning alliances? How does everyone feel about this?
Not a good idea in my opinion. However, we could limit the alliances.
Agree.
I don't disagree, but do note that non-land connection will affect stability and technology costs, which are vital for a hyper-techer like Portugal.
Disagree. Just allow buying Explorers and Conquistadors from 1419. If you want to, just allow it for Portugal. I still think it's more fair they have to spend points for it than get them for free.
This is only for ownage, right? I mean they are allowed to vassalize Persia and continue to conquer east of Persia (without land connection).
Sincerely disagree. AI yes, human nono.
Disagree. I think that a very clear rule is far better. The one I wrote may not be perfect, but it's a good start, and AFAIK it covers every scenario.
Last edited:
How can you 3 posts back agree on this and then 2 posts later sincerely disagree with a rule that was already there in Uni I?
Since we haven't yet desided on a weekday there is currently room for everyone. Once i'll post a weekday, i'll give people a few days to sign up.
Did I misunderstand you, perhaps? I mean that I disagree with breaking truces with humans (which is forbidden in Universalis 1, just checked rules), not with AI (as I edited into my above post).
breaking truce vs a player should be banned without good reason anyway,
say if your spain & allyd port for 150years i'd be able to agree that you should be able to help him trough the truce though however just to take more provs or continiu a war ect should be banned for sure
i agree on adding a no persian prov rule
i agree on historicle leaders if portugal is played tho mats has a viable alternative, i do think portugal should get a random explorer a session atleast pre 1453 & after that & random conq & explorer a session
where all the rest should start with conq & explorer after 1492
i'm strongly in favor of banning alliances entire & keeping a forcepeace rule to
say if your spain & allyd port for 150years i'd be able to agree that you should be able to help him trough the truce though however just to take more provs or continiu a war ect should be banned for sure
i agree on adding a no persian prov rule
i agree on historicle leaders if portugal is played tho mats has a viable alternative, i do think portugal should get a random explorer a session atleast pre 1453 & after that & random conq & explorer a session
where all the rest should start with conq & explorer after 1492
i'm strongly in favor of banning alliances entire & keeping a forcepeace rule to
Last edited:
Seeing as how everyone has maxed out land tech in Uni 1, perhaps the next game should have everyone on Muslim (or even Eastern) tech to slow down tech even more?
Of course you know that means war.very very true and it goes way back
yet hal has always been a great player never afraid of trying something
I have to disagree. Look at Spain and France. We had not so bad incomes, yet we were lagging in tech very bad.