EU3 Modification Question

[alfred russel]

Also, since you guys said that I should wait to get the game until I concluded it was too easy and needed the changes, I've now bought the game and come to the same conclusion.

Also, I'd like to tone down colonization and take out all the native countries besides the Aztecs and Incas.

Well at least not you have a better idea what changes you'd like to make.

Yeah, reading a little bit on Paradox (I can't go there at work, which is why I'm posting here) complaints against colonization speed were numerous.  I wonder if the simple solution isn't to just reduce the rate you get colonists dramatically - like by a factor of ten.

Really though, with the exception of Portugal and Spain, there shouldn't be colonization until around 1600. Since I start my games in 1493, it would seem the fix for me is to only give those two countries the "quest for the new world" idea to start and lock it for everyone until they get the trade tech that should come up around 1600.

A factor of 10 may be too harsh: it seems you get about one colonist a year, which would mean by a factor of 10 you would only be able to establish about 20 colonies max in 2 centuries (and it would really hurt if the natives killed your colony, or if a colony failed). If England started colonizing when they did historically, they could never match their historical results. It seems that to reduce everything by a factor of 5 would be better.

[Queequeg]

Anyone else notice with MMP that the Hindus tend to kick the Muslims out of India pretty fast and form huge semi-national Kingdoms?  In my Russia game it is 1529 and Rajputana and Viryanagar (not looking up how to spell that) have split all the non-central (Avadhi and Kanauji culturally, and Bihari) Indian provinces between them and V. is under a union lead by Rajputana.  I hope that ends up with a super Rajputana, that'd be kind of awesome. 

The Ottoman Empire is actually developing pretty well, starting to take huge chunks out of the Mamelukes and Central Europe.

The Conquest of the Steppe (especially Sibir) is a lot more trouble than it was in reality.  THERE WAS BARELY ANYONE THERE, so when the Russians move in it should become Russian culturally pretty quickly.  I hate having to build up huge castles and temples and dedicating lots of missionaries. 

[Tamas]

The Conquest of the Steppe (especially Sibir) is a lot more trouble than it was in reality.  THERE WAS BARELY ANYONE THERE, so when the Russians move in it should become Russian culturally pretty quickly.  I hate having to build up huge castles and temples and dedicating lots of missionaries.

Dude, it was the Mongols mongolofying Muscowy, not the other way around.

[Barrister]

Really though, with the exception of Portugal and Spain, there shouldn't be colonization until around 1600. Since I start my games in 1493, it would seem the fix for me is to only give those two countries the "quest for the new world" idea to start and lock it for everyone until they get the trade tech that should come up around 1600.

Except there were examples of European colonies prior to 1600.  Roanoke is perhaps most famous.

It's just that those examples were either quite small (more of the old-school trrading post than like colonies) or they failed.

If this was going to be fixed I tihnk you need to make colonies in general in that part of the world harder to establish and grow up until a certain point, and not artificially limit colonies to 2 countries.  After all the game is all about alt-history - why not an Aragon colonial empire?  A Navarrese/Basque colony?  Grenada?  All countries immediately around Castille and Portugal.

[alfred russel]

Really though, with the exception of Portugal and Spain, there shouldn't be colonization until around 1600. Since I start my games in 1493, it would seem the fix for me is to only give those two countries the "quest for the new world" idea to start and lock it for everyone until they get the trade tech that should come up around 1600.

Except there were examples of European colonies prior to 1600.  Roanoke is perhaps most famous.

It's just that those examples were either quite small (more of the old-school trrading post than like colonies) or they failed.

If this was going to be fixed I tihnk you need to make colonies in general in that part of the world harder to establish and grow up until a certain point, and not artificially limit colonies to 2 countries.  After all the game is all about alt-history - why not an Aragon colonial empire?  A Navarrese/Basque colony?  Grenada?  All countries immediately around Castille and Portugal.

If you were talking about a 1399 start date, I agree. But with a 1492 start date, I think there is a case that the situation in England (especially) and France just wasn't conducive to colonizing. The problem with making it harder to establish colonies up until 1600 is that Spain and Portugal were very successful. I think that any fix really needs to take into account the different starting conditions of the countries in that regard, and the easiest I can think of is to recognize that Spain and Portugal were ready, while no other countries were.

[Queequeg]

Dude, it was the Mongols mongolofying Muscowy, not the other way around.

That was in the 14th Century, in the 16th-17th Century Russia faced some resistance from Kazan but the Siberians basically lay down and took it.  I don't understand why they aren't anything but particularly pesky natives, as Russia's push into Siberia had a lot more in common with its subsequent colonizations further east than a traditional war (which was more like the conflict with Kazan). 

[garbon]

That was in the 14th Century, in the 16th-17th Century Russia faced some resistance from Kazan but the Siberians basically lay down and took it.  I don't understand why they aren't anything but particularly pesky natives, as Russia's push into Siberia had a lot more in common with its subsequent colonizations further east than a traditional war (which was more like the conflict with Kazan). 

Well the issue we had in eu2 is that a lot of Sibir's lands started off owned by the nascent Uzbeks at the start of the period.  There's really no way to have province control fade away (a la Great Invasions), so really it was a probably of nomadic states not being handled well.

[Barrister]

And the second war of English Aggression ended with Scotland gaining Northumberland, and England giving up claims on Cornwall.

Going to be tricky from here.  I don't want any more English provinces, don't really want to see France get much stronger, but I do want to see England give up Wales, and maybe take Meath while I'm at it...

And as soon as the truce is up France goes on the offensive.

[Tamas]

I do find the steppe nomad states way too overpowered, the AI would manage to unite Russia most of the time I think, if it wasn't for them.

And my point was about the Muscovite Russians being just as brutal uneducated savages as the nomads so there was no big cultural difference, only technological, which is easy to port.

[alfred russel]

I don't know if this is the typical experience, but my game has jumped the shark by around 1650.

Aside from the colonization issues, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, and France are probably about right in terms of their power and historical position. The historical boundaries are reasonable. The minor west german states are still intact.

Central and Eastern Europe are another story. The north german states have been assumed by Poland. Austria, which controls the netherlands, is a monster, having taken hungary and much of the Ottoman empire up to thrace. The biggest problem is Russia, which is just huge. It has taken a giant chunk out of the Ottoman Empire and is well into modern day iran. Technology wise, it is ahead of everyone else in the game. The Ottoman Empire has virtually collapsed, which is fine, but a major reason it has fallen apart--17th century crusades, is a bit anachronistic. There are some odd things, such as Japan owning provinces around India, which I'm not sure how has happened.

The most troubling thing to me is Russia being the most modern state and with France one of the top two land powers in Europe in 1650.

[Tamas]

Is this vanilla?

Russia getting huge is quite rare imho, the biggest problem with vanilla is the eventual domination of Europe by France. I know, in RL it took a 10 years long effort of all the other countries to stop that from happening, but we are talking about early 1600s here.

[alfred russel]

Is this vanilla?

Russia getting huge is quite rare imho, the biggest problem with vanilla is the eventual domination of Europe by France. I know, in RL it took a 10 years long effort of all the other countries to stop that from happening, but we are talking about early 1600s here.

It is EU3 Complete, without any mods.

What worries me more than how huge Russia is, is that it is way ahead in tech. But if this is a one off occurance, I guess that is fine.

[Barrister]

Is this vanilla?

Russia getting huge is quite rare imho, the biggest problem with vanilla is the eventual domination of Europe by France. I know, in RL it took a 10 years long effort of all the other countries to stop that from happening, but we are talking about early 1600s here.

It is EU3 Complete, without any mods.

What worries me more than how huge Russia is, is that it is way ahead in tech. But if this is a one off occurance, I guess that is fine.

It's pretty much guaranteed that 100+ years from the start things are going to look different from real life.  You're right, it's only a problem if it happens consistently.

[alfred russel]

Is this vanilla?

Russia getting huge is quite rare imho, the biggest problem with vanilla is the eventual domination of Europe by France. I know, in RL it took a 10 years long effort of all the other countries to stop that from happening, but we are talking about early 1600s here.

I think the problem stems from the game's inability to really portray internal strife. Sure there are improved rebels in this game, but it doesn't replicate how torn apart France was during the 16th century. That also comes back to the colonial issue--France wasn't going to be focusing thousands of guys on overseas missions during the timeperiod.

[Solmyr]

Yeah, reading a little bit on Paradox (I can't go there at work, which is why I'm posting here) complaints against colonization speed were numerous.  I wonder if the simple solution isn't to just reduce the rate you get colonists dramatically - like by a factor of ten.

Well MMP did that and I find their speed of colonization to be far too slow.
What it really needs is the western powers colonizing first and the rest coming later.