this map seems to imply that Brandenburg is important too. Where are Carithina and Thuringa? Maybe they can be left out?Mssr Roy said:
-
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.
OK, I see matters concerning my last post has been already settled. Poland starts in it’s shape in 900. I’ll post here information about Polish kings just as it has been done with Scandinavian:
Piast Choscikowic – Very “mythy” person, but he is said to had given beginning Royal Line
Siemowit – first prince, still no solid info
Lestek – no solid data ...
Siemomysl – no solid data, he has been also named Ziemiomysl (but I prefer the first name)
Here starts the written history of Poland. I have no idea what stats should be given to these four guys, but I propose some quite good, as they’ve made quite good job. (5/5/5 or 6/6/6). Also, there are no information about years of their reign, so probably they should be: 900-915, 915-930, 930-945, 945-960.
Mieszko I (960-992) – first historical Polish prince. Very good leader. If I’m not wrong no battles lost, even one won against Germans, he spliced a lot of territories, almost all ethnicaly Polish (as I’ve written before Krakow, Silesia, Danzig ...). He was also a great diplomat, he married Bohemian princess first, and later on German (daughter of HRE emperror if I’m not wrong)
Boleslaw the Valiant (992-1025) – First Polish king (crowned short before death
) He was also an outstanding leader. He held meeting in Gniezno (with Otto III invited) and was very respected by Emperor. He erected bishoprics (or sth like that, I’m not good at religious stuff), giving Poland official religious administration. He was a very brave warrior – he conquered Prague (Bohemia’s capitol), Kijev etc.
Mieszko II (1025-1034) – He was a loser Well, some say that he began his reign with very hard situation, but without getting into details, he neither led good diplomacy, nor administration. And he lost a lot of battles, and had to give good lands.
Kazimierz I the Renovator (1039-1058) – Again very good dude. After 5 years of anarchy (I don’t know how to implement it in game) he returned to Poland (from Germany), united all lands, rebuild and renovated cities, fortress etc. Additionally, he led quite good diplomacy. He moved capitol from Genizno to Krakow.
Boleslaw II the Courageous (1058-1079) – He was energetic and ambitious, but too hasty. He should have good military rating (but nothing really marvellous), average diplomatic, and a bit poor administrative.
Wladyslaw I Herman (1079 – 1102) – Lazy bastard. Very poor administration, average diplomacy and military (but rather worse than better)
Boleslaw III the Crooked-lips (1102 – 1138) – Again, after bad ruler good. Nice administration, acceptable diplomacy, good military. But he screwed Polish history for century by spliting Poland into small parts (each for each of his sons), which ought to be a big event, but that’s another story.
Wladyslaw II the Exile (or Outcast) (1138-1146) – He was standing in a pile of shit from the very beginning, so it’s hard to say whether he was good or not. But, assesing him with his performance and achievements – generally poor.
Boleslaw IV the Fuzzy (1146 – 1173) – The same as his brother (Wladyslaw II)
Mieszko III the Old (1173-1177, 1191, 1198-1199, 1202) – Almost the same as his brothers, but he did fought hard in order to change the situation, which should be appreciated. So, I’d give him average+ rating everywhere
Kazimierz II the Just (1177-1194) – Still hard times for Poland ... he was very, very average, only his administration should have additional + (but a small one)
That’s it i suppose. The years without king are years of anarchy, no idea what to give there – maybe just ANARCHY, with 1/1/1? I think it is a good idea. Don’t ask me why our kings had so funny nicknames
Piast Choscikowic – Very “mythy” person, but he is said to had given beginning Royal Line
Siemowit – first prince, still no solid info
Lestek – no solid data ...
Siemomysl – no solid data, he has been also named Ziemiomysl (but I prefer the first name)
Here starts the written history of Poland. I have no idea what stats should be given to these four guys, but I propose some quite good, as they’ve made quite good job. (5/5/5 or 6/6/6). Also, there are no information about years of their reign, so probably they should be: 900-915, 915-930, 930-945, 945-960.
Mieszko I (960-992) – first historical Polish prince. Very good leader. If I’m not wrong no battles lost, even one won against Germans, he spliced a lot of territories, almost all ethnicaly Polish (as I’ve written before Krakow, Silesia, Danzig ...). He was also a great diplomat, he married Bohemian princess first, and later on German (daughter of HRE emperror if I’m not wrong)
Boleslaw the Valiant (992-1025) – First Polish king (crowned short before death
) He was also an outstanding leader. He held meeting in Gniezno (with Otto III invited) and was very respected by Emperor. He erected bishoprics (or sth like that, I’m not good at religious stuff), giving Poland official religious administration. He was a very brave warrior – he conquered Prague (Bohemia’s capitol), Kijev etc.Mieszko II (1025-1034) – He was a loser
Well, some say that he began his reign with very hard situation, but without getting into details, he neither led good diplomacy, nor administration. And he lost a lot of battles, and had to give good lands. Kazimierz I the Renovator (1039-1058) – Again very good dude. After 5 years of anarchy (I don’t know how to implement it in game) he returned to Poland (from Germany), united all lands, rebuild and renovated cities, fortress etc. Additionally, he led quite good diplomacy. He moved capitol from Genizno to Krakow.
Boleslaw II the Courageous (1058-1079) – He was energetic and ambitious, but too hasty. He should have good military rating (but nothing really marvellous), average diplomatic, and a bit poor administrative.
Wladyslaw I Herman (1079 – 1102) – Lazy bastard. Very poor administration, average diplomacy and military (but rather worse than better)
Boleslaw III the Crooked-lips (1102 – 1138) – Again, after bad ruler good. Nice administration, acceptable diplomacy, good military. But he screwed Polish history for century by spliting Poland into small parts (each for each of his sons), which ought to be a big event, but that’s another story.
Wladyslaw II the Exile (or Outcast) (1138-1146) – He was standing in a pile of shit from the very beginning, so it’s hard to say whether he was good or not. But, assesing him with his performance and achievements – generally poor.
Boleslaw IV the Fuzzy (1146 – 1173) – The same as his brother (Wladyslaw II)
Mieszko III the Old (1173-1177, 1191, 1198-1199, 1202) – Almost the same as his brothers, but he did fought hard in order to change the situation, which should be appreciated. So, I’d give him average+ rating everywhere
Kazimierz II the Just (1177-1194) – Still hard times for Poland ... he was very, very average, only his administration should have additional + (but a small one)
That’s it i suppose. The years without king are years of anarchy, no idea what to give there – maybe just ANARCHY, with 1/1/1? I think it is a good idea. Don’t ask me why our kings had so funny nicknames
Most excellent Triangle! This is very good information, thanks!
BTW, I made another border change for Bulgaria; Wallachia is now under native control. Turns out the area was occupied by some tribe for about 20 years, starting in 890, before the Bulgarians managed to capture it back. They know of the province and will be able to colonize it.
Brandenburg, yeah it may be in there, I just meant to start out with, the big duchies. Brandenburg and Austria don't come until later. Although Carithnia is roughly where Austria will be so maybe we can just use a single tag for that.
BTW, I made another border change for Bulgaria; Wallachia is now under native control. Turns out the area was occupied by some tribe for about 20 years, starting in 890, before the Bulgarians managed to capture it back. They know of the province and will be able to colonize it.
Brandenburg, yeah it may be in there, I just meant to start out with, the big duchies. Brandenburg and Austria don't come until later. Although Carithnia is roughly where Austria will be so maybe we can just use a single tag for that.
Another option would be to make it a 500ish population colony with a minimal fort, all under the control of 5,000 extremely agressive natives (i.e. control = NAT). It will take the Bulgarians a few years to get control back, typically.Mssr Roy said:
Yeah, I saw Carithnia on a map; if it was never a truly independednt state then combining the tag with Austria makes sense to me. We'll need a tag for Venice too. I still don't know where Thurigna is/whether it ever played a major role during 900-1200, although I have some recollection of it being north-central Germany.Mssr Roy said:
Mssr Roy said:
That tribe will be the Pechenegs.
As for the Bulgarian territories North of Danube, there is a debate as what they comprised as size. The Bulgarian point of view can be seen here:
http://www.kroraina.com/knigi/en/pk/pkoled.html
The Western point of view here:
http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0900.htm
Doctarr's idea is very good IMHO
I agree, but the problem is that EU2 provinces of Aragon and Catalonia are way too big for simulating these countries: Barcelona was conquered in 801, but the southern border of Catalonia province is in the Ebro river which wasn't reached until 1140, and the southern border of Aragon province is a zone that was reached only after 1100. So, historicity should be sacrified here, as one can't accurately represent the area.doktarr said:
Some suggestions:
Aragon was formed as a county of Navarra that later became independent, so maybe if Navarra conquers Aragon, the kingdom of Aragon could be created through events.
For Catalonia: well that would be a mess: the province of Catalonia and Gerona corresponds roughly to the county of Barcelona, and then you also have the county of Roussillon, incorporated to the county of Barcelona in 1172 (but if you don't have free tags, it could be added to Barcelona from the beginning). Two options: 1) have and independent county of Barcelona at the start including the province of Girona (and maybe Roussillon, but not Catalonia), vassal of France (as it was). 2) have it as it is now in your map but around 950 independence through events.
Remember that in 1137 you should simulate the union between Aragon and Barcelona forming the Crown of Aragon.
Well, just my 2 €
Some events for Norway (I don't know how to trigger them or anything, this is just suggestions).
935:
A son of Harald Fairhair, Håkon, whom has been raised by the English king Athelstan has returned to Norway and claims the throne from Eirik Bloodaxe. Who will you be?
1: Overthrow the tyrant, Håkon the Good will rule our kingdom! (makes Håkon the Good king of Norway, revolt in Bergenshus, AI choice, triggers Eirik Bloodaxe as ruler of Yorkshire, Kingdom of Jorvik independant and at war with Dublin kingdom who controls Lancashire and Northumbria)
2: Lojalty to the rightful ruler. (Eirik Bloodaxe remains king until 961 when Harald Greyfur takes the throne, revolts in Trønderlag, Narvik and Østlandet, Dublin keeps Yorkshire)
BTW: Dublin inheritance for York, Northumberland and Lancashire should be an event for 921 where the AI always choose to inherit.
995:
You are now the rightful ruler of Norway, King Olaf Tryggvasson. You personally converted in England, but will you bring this new faith upon the people? If you choose to enforce this new faith it may cause some unrest, however, relations with Christian nations will improve. If your choice is to personally convert back to paganism and let the people worship the old Gods, stability will be maintained.
1: Enlighten the people with the true faith. (revolts in Trønderlag and Narvik, gain 6 missionaries, stability -3, centralization +1, relations with England +100, relations with Scotland +100, relations with Denmark +50, relations with France +50, relations with Svear -100* relations with Gøtar -100* AI choice)
2: Stay true to the old Gods. (stability +3, relations with Denmark -50, relations with Svear +50*, relations with Gøtar +50*)
3: Stay true to the old Gods and force the filthy Danes to do the same! (stability +1, relations with Denmark -200, gain a casus belli against Denmark for 120 months)
*I believe Sweden was still pagan
1047:
King Magnus has died and you are now the sole ruler King Harald, the Danes however do not favour you and have rose up in rebellion under Svein Estridsson, will you try and quell them or be at peace?
1: Those traitors! I alone shall rule Denmark! (gain national provinces in Skåne, Jylland and Sjælland, at war with Denmark, loose Sjælland and Skåne but keep Jylland, centralization +1, +200 ducats, AI choice)
2: We shall live in harmony (stability +2, relations with Denmark +200, loose Sjælland, Skåne and Jylland, centralization -1)
1064 (Only awailable if Denmark is not annexed or vassalized by Norway):
Peace proposal from Denmark, Svein and Harald issued a peace in 1064 despite the Norwegian victory at Niså in 1062, pherhaps Harald had plans to go westwards...
1: Accept the generous peace. (loose any holdings in Denmark, 300 ducats in indemnities from Denmark, peace with Denmark if war goes on, relations with Denmark +100, -2 Bad Boy points, -10 victory points, loose national provinces on Skåne, Sjælland and Jylland, AI choice if Denmark is not annexed or vassalized by Norway)
2: Ridicolous, we shall continiue to claim our rightfull land! (war continiue with Denmark if still goes on, Sjælland, Skåne and Jylland remains national provinces, +10 victory points)
1066:
A man named Tostig has asked for your support to drive out his brother, Harold of England, in return, you may gain control of England. What is your choice wise lord?
1: Go westerway like our ancestors! (at war with England, gain 10 transports in Sea of Trønderlag, gain 20,000 infantry in Trønderlag, AI choice)
2: Why should we bother? (+2 stability, relations with England +100)
1108 (only awailable if converted to Christianity, something that can be done by a human player at any time, AI will only convert one time, in 995):
Holy war! In 1108, King Sigurd of Norway mounted a crusade towards the Holy Land, on his way he raided in Moorish Spain and helped capturing Lisbon he fought battles with several pirate fleets on his way and visited the King of Sicily before helping King Baldvin of Jerusalem in the siege of Sidon. What is your choice? Will you embark on this great campaign? Masses of people in Norway now wants to go and fight for God, will you hear their call?
1: In the name of God, to war! (stability +2, war with Almohads, war with Baleares, war with whoever Muslim force in the Holy Land, military access through Lyon, Sicily and Jerusalem, relations with England +100, relations with Castille +100, relations with Lyon +100, relations with Papal States +150, relations with Sicily +150, relations with with all Muslim nations -100, +25 victory points. Gain 5 warships, 5 galleys and 5 transports in Sea of Stavanger, gain 12,000 infantry, 5,000 cavalry and 30 siege weapons in Bergenshus. If all these wars gets in-active, -200 victory points, -200 ducats. AI choice, only if converted to Christianity, which will be done unless a human has played as Norway for a few years just to prevent it, AI will not go inactive, sends fleet all the way to Jerusalem and engage war with Muslims.)
2: There is no gains for us in that! (stability -2, relations with Papal States -50, -25 victory points)
I can come up with more if you like, but that's it for now...
935:
A son of Harald Fairhair, Håkon, whom has been raised by the English king Athelstan has returned to Norway and claims the throne from Eirik Bloodaxe. Who will you be?
1: Overthrow the tyrant, Håkon the Good will rule our kingdom! (makes Håkon the Good king of Norway, revolt in Bergenshus, AI choice, triggers Eirik Bloodaxe as ruler of Yorkshire, Kingdom of Jorvik independant and at war with Dublin kingdom who controls Lancashire and Northumbria)
2: Lojalty to the rightful ruler. (Eirik Bloodaxe remains king until 961 when Harald Greyfur takes the throne, revolts in Trønderlag, Narvik and Østlandet, Dublin keeps Yorkshire)
BTW: Dublin inheritance for York, Northumberland and Lancashire should be an event for 921 where the AI always choose to inherit.
995:
You are now the rightful ruler of Norway, King Olaf Tryggvasson. You personally converted in England, but will you bring this new faith upon the people? If you choose to enforce this new faith it may cause some unrest, however, relations with Christian nations will improve. If your choice is to personally convert back to paganism and let the people worship the old Gods, stability will be maintained.
1: Enlighten the people with the true faith. (revolts in Trønderlag and Narvik, gain 6 missionaries, stability -3, centralization +1, relations with England +100, relations with Scotland +100, relations with Denmark +50, relations with France +50, relations with Svear -100* relations with Gøtar -100* AI choice)
2: Stay true to the old Gods. (stability +3, relations with Denmark -50, relations with Svear +50*, relations with Gøtar +50*)
3: Stay true to the old Gods and force the filthy Danes to do the same! (stability +1, relations with Denmark -200, gain a casus belli against Denmark for 120 months)
*I believe Sweden was still pagan
1047:
King Magnus has died and you are now the sole ruler King Harald, the Danes however do not favour you and have rose up in rebellion under Svein Estridsson, will you try and quell them or be at peace?
1: Those traitors! I alone shall rule Denmark! (gain national provinces in Skåne, Jylland and Sjælland, at war with Denmark, loose Sjælland and Skåne but keep Jylland, centralization +1, +200 ducats, AI choice)
2: We shall live in harmony (stability +2, relations with Denmark +200, loose Sjælland, Skåne and Jylland, centralization -1)
1064 (Only awailable if Denmark is not annexed or vassalized by Norway):
Peace proposal from Denmark, Svein and Harald issued a peace in 1064 despite the Norwegian victory at Niså in 1062, pherhaps Harald had plans to go westwards...
1: Accept the generous peace. (loose any holdings in Denmark, 300 ducats in indemnities from Denmark, peace with Denmark if war goes on, relations with Denmark +100, -2 Bad Boy points, -10 victory points, loose national provinces on Skåne, Sjælland and Jylland, AI choice if Denmark is not annexed or vassalized by Norway)
2: Ridicolous, we shall continiue to claim our rightfull land! (war continiue with Denmark if still goes on, Sjælland, Skåne and Jylland remains national provinces, +10 victory points)
1066:
A man named Tostig has asked for your support to drive out his brother, Harold of England, in return, you may gain control of England. What is your choice wise lord?
1: Go westerway like our ancestors! (at war with England, gain 10 transports in Sea of Trønderlag, gain 20,000 infantry in Trønderlag, AI choice)
2: Why should we bother? (+2 stability, relations with England +100)
1108 (only awailable if converted to Christianity, something that can be done by a human player at any time, AI will only convert one time, in 995):
Holy war! In 1108, King Sigurd of Norway mounted a crusade towards the Holy Land, on his way he raided in Moorish Spain and helped capturing Lisbon he fought battles with several pirate fleets on his way and visited the King of Sicily before helping King Baldvin of Jerusalem in the siege of Sidon. What is your choice? Will you embark on this great campaign? Masses of people in Norway now wants to go and fight for God, will you hear their call?
1: In the name of God, to war! (stability +2, war with Almohads, war with Baleares, war with whoever Muslim force in the Holy Land, military access through Lyon, Sicily and Jerusalem, relations with England +100, relations with Castille +100, relations with Lyon +100, relations with Papal States +150, relations with Sicily +150, relations with with all Muslim nations -100, +25 victory points. Gain 5 warships, 5 galleys and 5 transports in Sea of Stavanger, gain 12,000 infantry, 5,000 cavalry and 30 siege weapons in Bergenshus. If all these wars gets in-active, -200 victory points, -200 ducats. AI choice, only if converted to Christianity, which will be done unless a human has played as Norway for a few years just to prevent it, AI will not go inactive, sends fleet all the way to Jerusalem and engage war with Muslims.)
2: There is no gains for us in that! (stability -2, relations with Papal States -50, -25 victory points)
I can come up with more if you like, but that's it for now...
Nice events KY. I think that converting to Chritianity should get you at least one free conversion, too.
The crusades event will have to be designed in the context of the larger crusade events.
In the end, I think there are four really hard event sequences to code in this scenario (given that the third crusade is already written in some form, and just has to get modded up to fit the way we will do things). They are:
1) The Chinese revolt sequence between 907 and 960 (and to a lesser degree the aftershocks until things stabilize in 1127).
2) The Norman conquest in 1066.
3) The Seljuk Turk advance from ~1030 to 1090.
4) The first crusade.
Most other events are a matter of doing the research, writing simple events, then running a game hands-off and figuring out which leaders need to be stronger and what AI files need to be modified.
The crusades event will have to be designed in the context of the larger crusade events.
In the end, I think there are four really hard event sequences to code in this scenario (given that the third crusade is already written in some form, and just has to get modded up to fit the way we will do things). They are:
1) The Chinese revolt sequence between 907 and 960 (and to a lesser degree the aftershocks until things stabilize in 1127).
2) The Norman conquest in 1066.
3) The Seljuk Turk advance from ~1030 to 1090.
4) The first crusade.
Most other events are a matter of doing the research, writing simple events, then running a game hands-off and figuring out which leaders need to be stronger and what AI files need to be modified.
Alright doktarr, let's be clear on this right now: Should the HRE start out as several medium sized duchies, or one big country?
My opinion? One big country - Germany+Lorriaine, with Italy, upper Burgundy, and lower Burgundy already independet - just like you have on the most recent map. Lorraine sarts as an active revolter, but the other revolters (Saxony, Franconia, Bavaria, et cetera) don't become active until 1075. That's my opinion, for what it's worth.Mssr Roy said:
If hands-off tests reveal that Germany agressively expands into Poland/Hungary/et cetera in those first 175 years, then we'll have to re-think things or figure out some creative handicaps to hold it back.
Last edited:
The year is 900 right? That leaves us with an Eastern Frankish Kingdom and no HRE :rofl: Kingdom of Italy should of course be in it...
Pherhaps one free conversion, but that should not be enabled for Trønderlag, Hålogaland and Finnmark, those christianizer kings had their share of rebellions to quell thanks to their introduction of christianity, specially in Trønderlag. Due to my despice for revolts I would choose not to convert. Another thing, hopefully paganism is displayed in the blue color of protestantism.
Pherhaps one free conversion, but that should not be enabled for Trønderlag, Hålogaland and Finnmark, those christianizer kings had their share of rebellions to quell thanks to their introduction of christianity, specially in Trønderlag. Due to my despice for revolts I would choose not to convert. Another thing, hopefully paganism is displayed in the blue color of protestantism.
Actually not a bad idea... my suggestion was to make a nation in Tahiti be HRE until their first monarch "dies" in 963, which will allow germany to take the title.King Yngvar said:
Actually, Italy was owned by a different Caroligian at that time... it wasn't united with Germany again until Otto came along in 962.King Yngvar said:
Well, you could give them a conversion plus several religions revolts in the same province.King Yngvar said:
Well, IMHO the event should be set up such that converting is clearly the better option. Greatly improved relations with christian nations, plus the actual stats for christianity should be much better than paganism. Maybe a tech group jump too.King Yngvar said:
Are you saying that purely for aesthetic reasons? Because I argued above that using paganism for paganism makes more sense. Religious stats can be adjusted in religion.csv so that paganism is not as bad as it is in the GC (although it should still be weaker than the major religions).King Yngvar said:
My argument boiled down to the fact that using protestantism for paganism leaves eastern pagans at a huge disadvantage, since they can't tolerate other religions.
Weaker? So the "pagan" Vikings that invaded the British Isles, France and Netherlands, and took control of Russia down to the Black Sea was weak? I do not think they should be left with a disadvantage for being pagan, in MTW: Viking Invasion for example they are left with an advantage, extra raiding bonus, unless they convert, then they looses it. Mongol Empire Scenario chose to make the pagans blue. You are concerned about the eastern religions, but what about making Æsatru/Norse Heathenism/Odinism, whatever name (including Baltic and Slavic heathenism), as a religion based on Reformed. The Reformed moral bonus could display the ferioucity of the Vikings. And for conversion to Christianity, pherhaps the advantages/disadvantages (depends how you see it) could be better relations with Catholics, revolts, +2 centralization and +2 serfdom, I don't see a reason to improve military techs (the bravest warriors we had in the "pagan" age), naval techs (longships did their best in the "pagan" age) or trade (Scandinavians had good trade in that period too), pherhaps some +1000 infrastructure investments could do... But concider making it Reformed, then just use Protestantism on something else, pherhaps divide it into Slavic/Baltic and Scandinavian paganism (don't know if it is possible to do all this, but maybe just change the Reformed icon that is displayed into a Thor's hammer/or alike, icon).
Tahiti? :rofl: Good idea.
Will it be possible to discover America as a Viking faction, with the Explorers/Conquistadors like Bjarni, Herjulf, Eirik the Red and Leif Eiriksson?
Nope, they weren't weak, of course. I don't debate the efficacy of the viking raids in the first half of the middle ages. What I am arguing is that there no reason to expect that NOT converting to Christianity would allow them to prolong the effectiveness of those raids.King Yngvar said:
I think tying the christian conversion to the loss of Viking dominance on the north seas is sort of confusing cause and effect. The reason the conversion happened was because the vikings were no longer a semi-nomadic, disorganized (if aggresive) bunch of tribes. They had started to organize into permanent kingdoms, and as such had to start having normal relations with other kingdoms. The conversion to Christianity reflects that, not the other way around.
And we all know what an accurate historical simulation MTW is,King Yngvar said:
Seriously though, there could be some advantages to paganism, but there should be big disadvantages too. The way of the viking raider was on the decline by the second century of this scenario. Other (Christian) states had superior weapons technology, especially when it came to cavalry. Staying pagan should mean that you risk letting those innovations pass you by.
And thanks to that change, the pagan mongols do have too many revolts in China, just like I'm talking about. Also, they didn't have to use a religion spot for Judaism, so they had one more to spare.King Yngvar said:
That is what the IFU scenario does. But they had religions to spare thanks to condensing the eastern religions into one. We are using every religion as is, so we can't spare one for seperate flavors of paganism.King Yngvar said:
I was suggesting we use Reformed for heretical christian. We could switch pagan out for one of the others, but I think this is a bad idea for all the reasons I state about 15 posts back. I don't see the point, really.
Once again, we can edit religion.csv, so we can give each religion exactly the bonuses and penalties we want. We are not tied to the bonuses and penalties each religion has in the GC. I agree wholeheartedly that paganism should get a morale bonus; that makes perfect sense and it will allow them to win a lot of battles during the low-tech first century, just like they did historically. But along with that, they should get large tech penalties and probably a pretty large tax penalty. After all, they made a lot of their money from raids, right?King Yngvar said:
Isn't it possible that the warriors were at their "bravest" and the longships did their best because later on, the technology of other areas of Europe caught up or passed them by? I don't think they should get huge tech bonuses for converting to Christianity, but I think the rate of tech development should accelerate.King Yngvar said:
Seems reasonable to me. The naval attrition values should be pretty bad, though, so it should be fairly tough to make it across. Also, the colonization modifiers in the Americas should be really bad, so that it's very tough to establish a permanent outpost there. After all, those colonies did die out.King Yngvar said:
Yes but it should be possible to colonize, though hard, pherhaps making a Scraeling nation around Acadie, Nova Scotia, Gaspieste and Micmac. And the seas between Norway and Iceland should not be that atrittion giving, I believe the atrittion is high enough, but establish colony/trade post should be the hard thing.
Location Penalties!
The naval attrition can be wicked at level 0 but we can give Norway some naval tech advantage.
Reformed->Jewish. Nothing else.
BTW, I was thinking of giving most nations Orthodox tech so they wouldn't advance too fast in a medieval scenario. What do you think?
The naval attrition can be wicked at level 0 but we can give Norway some naval tech advantage.
Reformed->Jewish. Nothing else.
BTW, I was thinking of giving most nations Orthodox tech so they wouldn't advance too fast in a medieval scenario. What do you think?
So, there's no way you're going with my alternate mapping? One other problem with Orthodox->pagan is that nobody can force-convert them, which is a nice feature for pagans to have.Mssr Roy said:
But making Protestant be pagan would be even stranger from the perspective of Muslim nations, who would then have Catholic on one tolerance slider, and Orthodox+Pagan on another. And any approach that uses a Christian religion for pagan is going to make life difficult for eastern pagan nations.
I really need to stop complaining about this; if a decision has been made then I will shut up about it. I guess I just don't understand why we're not using pagan for pagans. I mean, it's the obvious choice, right? The Mongolian scenario changed it to allow map-stealing from pagans, and to disable annexation of multi-province pagans, but neither of these seem like huge concerns in the 900-1200 time span.
Not a bad idea, but it might create weird effects with the neighbor bonus. I think it would be nice to have more localized tech groups. Having five tech groups corresponds nicely to Christian world/Muslim World/Pagan and Steppe cultures/India and Indonesia/China and the vicinity.Mssr Roy said:
You could just give the religions in each tech group bonuses or penalties to compensate for the group tech speed. In other words, the religions that get latin tech (Christianity, I guess) could get a penalty to tech speed, while religions that get Chinese tech group (Confucians and maybe buddhists too, I guess) would get a tech speed bonus. I'd be happy to handle the editing of religion.csv to adjust for the changes, if you let me know which tech group is going where.
So I guess I will have to learn how to change the religion and all that myself, making the Jews so fierce seems a little wierd to me. Protestantism would go better for the Jews.
The pagan religions could be divided into eastern and western (Scandinavia, Baltic, Slavic) religions. With the eastern ones just having the normal pagan mode.