|
Hm...I've not done West African start from 867, just 1066. What's the situation like down there? Ghana's pagan at this time, right?
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
I'm still undecided between "Welsh king of Ghana" or "Ghanan king of Wales." Anyone care to convince me?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Just wanted to make sure everyone is aware that the GRAND grand campaign of CK2 from Old Gods start date is nearly 600 years and we're not even going to see the Mongols for over 3 centuries. Buckle in for the long haul guys...there's a lot of gameplay before we get to EU4.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
I think it's cool that this time we get a CK2 LP from the earliest bookmark, but perhaps the next person to do one should pick a later CK2 bookmark for variety...same with EU4, for that matter. That said, for a megacampaign, Wiz started off Azeri in 1187. CK2 has 1204, 1220, and 1241 bookmarks that all offer over 200 years of CK2 while starting from a late enough point that certain things are already set in stone (Plantagenet ascendancy in England and Angevin Empire concerns for France, sack of Constantinople by Fourth Crusade and considerable Turkish presence in Anatolia, Hohenstaufen fusion of the Sicilian and Imperial crowns and the conflict between the Papacy and the Hohenstaufens that would tear central Europe apart through the 13th century). Just saying. Even the 1081 bookmark would be interesting because it's basically 1066 world except post-Manzikert with Turkish domination of Anatolia (which seems to very rarely happen properly in CK2).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:My question is, how can Ghana sink the British Navy? Alfred the Great isn't even (yet) on the throne of Wessex (though he is very much alive), no need to fear there.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Neruz posted:Just because Ghana was never relevant on the world stage in reality doesn't mean Grey can't make them relevant; he has several centuries to get Ghana into shape and if he can manage to secure the majority of Africa he'll actually be in a pretty good position. At the moment (and for the next few hundred years) Ghana was actually pretty relevant. However, our start date is towards the origin of the kingdom and before its conversion to Islam, which put it into much easier contact with the broader Muslim world. Ghana pioneered the "we're sitting on mountains of gold and foreigners will trade absurd amounts of actually useful stuff for this shiny metal" system that its successors Mali and Songhai honed to perfection in the late Medieval/Renaissance age. I look forward to lenoon giving us some specifics.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
Rumda posted:AAAND I just realized why the trade routes in EU4 are set up the way they are, at least the sea routes. Not entirely: EU4 has a Brazil->Ivory Coast->Timbuktu route. Everything besides Brazil is worthless.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Vander posted:As an EU3 player who doesn't have 4 yet, what are trade routes and why should we care? Well, you get next to no tax or production income on distant overseas provinces (something that leads people to underestimate playing a colonial game in Africa...a lot of those provinces are actually pretty good but a European player will never see the benefits of it while a colonial Songhai can reap in the dough of ruling Africa directly because Africa is NOT distant overseas when ruled from Timbuktu). Most of the income from distant overseas provinces comes in from its trade income. Unlike in EU3, where there are a series of static COTs where you can place merchants, in EU4, the trade income can either move or not move along a series of routes. You want to get as much income as possible flowing to your trade node (and as little as possible flowing from your tradenode to points further downstream). If you get colonies that are downstream of you, you'll never see any trade income from them whatsoever and because they're distant overseas you'll never see any production or tax income either so they're effectively useless. The good thing about playing in West Africa if you know what you're doing is that the entirety of Asia is upstream from you so a skilled Africa player can get the Riches Of The Orient™ flowing into Timbuktu. As mentioned before, though, the only part of the Americas that's upstream from us would be Brazil (which can either go Brazil->Ivory Coast or Brazil->Caribbean). If we owned Brazil we could shunt its trade away from the Caribbean and towards Ivory Coast, where it would snowball with the trade goods from Ivory Coast and hopefully head Ivory Coast->Timbuktu...but trolling North Africans and Europeans could try to divert it to Ivory Coast->Mauretanian Coast->Safi or Sevilla (and then, IIRC, either Safi->Venice or Sevilla->Bordeaux->Antwerp). We'd also laugh off attempts by the Barbary states to try to pump things on the Timbuktu->Tunis line. EDIT: To clarify, I'm saying that New World colonies outside of Brazil are pretty much guaranteed to be unprofitable for us...but profit isn't the only reason why people engaged in colonial ventures. Don't let what I said dissuade you if you're really set on Ghanan Mexico or something. Patter Song fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Oct 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
That map's kind of unfair because it doesn't include Alaska in with the USA, which increases USA's landmass by a very large amount. Still, point taken.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
So Gao is driving westwards, and we, in turn, are making up for our losses to the east by picking up territories to our west. Ghana is being shifted westwards. Something tells me that the 10th century will be a series of major wars to regain the land we've lost from Gao and finish them off as a threat for good, only for Grey to realize that there's still half a millennium of game left.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
DentedLamp posted:As I understand it, Ghana succeeds into Mali for EU4 and Gao succeeds into Songhai, right? IRL, Ghana Empire/Wagadou fell in the 12th century and Mali conquered most of the same lands in the 13th. Songhai was an on-again-off-again Malian vassal that broke with Mali for good during its period of weakness in the early 15th century and by the end of the 15th century had conquered much of its most valuable territories, ruling a vast Sahelian empire until it was crushed by the Moroccans in the late 16th century.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
We still have half a millennium yet, we'll have a motherfucker on the throne eventually, don't worry. Someone once said that if Oedipus were remade in the present day it'd be titled Motherfucker. I think that, instead, it's a good title for CK2.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
So we're just going to roll with keeping paganism rather than looking to convert to Islam, eh? I'm down with that, but it's a dangerous road...if we do this, we're not going to have the diplomatic advantages of interacting with other Muslim courts as another one of the faithful. No CK2 marriages with charming Arab/Maghrebi princesses.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Neruz posted:Its a pity we can't just exploit our insanely plentiful natural gold reserves to buy enough mercs to let us take on the Muslims in a fair fight. Just to make it clear, I'm reasonably certain that the Bure and Bambuk gold fields were the largest gold deposits in the Old World. We're not just sitting on gold, we're sitting on a lot of gold.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
Someday, we'll be back for Mecca. Count on it. It's now part of the Ghanan patrimony, a proper piece of our empire, and even a millennium from now we won't forget that Mecca is rightfully ours.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Neruz posted:By the way; this question goes out to Paradox goons; do the Umayyad always suffer these intermittent civil wars every decade or so or is that just a wierd thing wot happens. The Umayyads took over the rule of the young Islamic world after the murder of Ali, the fourth caliph and son-in-law of Muhammad. Because the founder of the Umayyads was Muawiyah, the son of Muhammad's onetime archnemesis Abu Sufyan, many of the more pious Muslims distrusted the Umayyads, especially after Muawiyah's son Yazid had both of Muhammad's two grandchildren killed outside of Karbala (a moment that Shia Muslims, who venerate Muhammad's bloodline, still mourn to this day). The Umayyads were centered in the (then) distinctly un-Islamic city of Damascus and weren't particularly known for their piety. They were overthrown and mostly murdered en masse during the Abbasid "Revolution" when the more pious Abbasid faction had them massacred...one Umayyad prince, Abd al-Rahman I, managed to get away and flee to the ends of the Islamic world, Spain (al-Andalus) where he proclaimed that the Umayyad caliphate lived on, while the Abbasids concentrated power in the rest of the Islamic world in their newly built capital of Baghdad (in an effort to get out of dubiously-Islamic Damascus).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
Specialization is actually what academic history revolves around, and I kind of hate that about it. Your goal ends up to be the world expert on one tiny facet of history. Due to this, a lot of people studying ridiculous things is needed for the system to work. Then you talk to a non-historian about your research into the diaries and writings of Captain Malcolm Kennedy, onetime British military attache to Japan in the World War I/immediately post-World War I era, and people give you blank stares. EDIT: He truly was the first weeaboo. Imagine writing the words "Sou desu ka?" in an English book as someone responding to him in conversation without any sort of translation, or calling a rickshaw a rikusha. In a book written in the 1960s, no less. Patter Song fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Oct 27, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
The Muslims really are never going to live down "that one time when Mecca defected to the Ghanans for no reason," are they? If you guys really are so inheritance-happy, we should have gone Muslim rather than striving to reform well-snake worship. With the number of Ogoonas running around, if we were released on Muslim breeding partners there'd be Ogoonas on the throne from Seville to Tehran in a few generations.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
By the end of the game, will there even be a person in West Africa that isn't an Ogoonu? If we're making custom NIs for EU4, I think one of our starting traditions should be +25% heir chance to reflect our dynasty's legendary sexual potency.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:
Only if you consider the Nicaea-based continuation that reclaimed Constantinople eventually still "the Byzantine Empire" and not some other entity. I think it's totally fair to say that the Byzantine Empire ended in 1204.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 19:53
|
|
15th century. Byzantium was destroyed in 1453, while the splinter realm of Trebizond made it to 1461.
|
There was also a long-standing relationship between the Popes and the Kings of the Franks all the way back to Clovis. Merovingian Francia was originally the only one of the first wave of Western Roman successor states to recognize Papal supremacy and reject Arianism, and even by the 9th century when most of the western states were recognizably orthodox, Francia still had the eldest daughter of the Church rep that France would keep all the way up to the Revolution. Charlemagne had centuries of precedent of Frankish rulers being buddy-buddy with the Papacy behind him as precedent when he was crowned Emperor. Even then he was always kind of suspicious of the title. IMO it's easier to view Charlemagne as a one-off and treat the Holy Roman Empire as an institution that only really existed after the collapse of the Carolingians. I prefer to consider Otto I the first true Holy Roman Emperor, with Charlemagne as a person with the title Emperor of the Romans but not the HRE title (which Charlemagne wouldn't have recognized, anyway).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Well, you might as well wait for the 1.4 patch that will come along with the expansion whether we're randomizing or not (and it's probably best if we don't randomize). The very fact that North America is getting over 20 new tribes alone is interesting enough to make the colonial game more dynamic whether the world is randomized or not.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
ChrisAsmadi posted:To be fair, from all appearances the expansion will make even the existing new world stuff much more interesting. Yeah, this is a thing:  Much livelier New World.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
Neruz posted:Indeed; this was the era of human history where they came up with 'smart' ideas like marrying your sister to keep the bloodline pure. You're about 1500 years too late, the Egyptians were doing that way back in the day.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
The Nozzle posted:No, we just have to wait for East Vs. West for an accurate depiction of 20th century politics. East vs West is coming in Q1 2014 and contains 1946-1992, and its attention to naval detail looks pretty impressive. I think you could probably recreate literally all of the famous naval battles of the Cold War era in EvW.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:From a page back, but as timelines go: One minor correction: EU3 and 4 have the same end date in 1821 and the Napoleonic Wars ended in 1815. The reason V2 doesn't start in 1821 is the Latin American revolutions...Spain would probably keep big chunks of the Western Hemisphere every game and throw off balance.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
If the occupation of wasteland is such a concern, let us take the Suez, build a new fleet on the other end of it, and just sail down the Red Sea and reclaim our patrimony. No need to sail to the dangerous waters of the south.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
ChrisAsmadi posted:If we wanted to be ready for EU4, we'd move it to Tangiers so that our capital's trade node was the one that covers that area. Yeah, if you wanted to be all "optimal" Tangiers is about as good a capital as you can get in the African continent in EU4 (excluding Egypt...Alexandria can be crazy-profitable). That said, I don't think Grey's all about optimal, and we could do far worse than Tunis because Timbuktu feeds into Tunis so our old territory feeds into where we collect. Theoretically, with Tunis as our capital, we could set up a ridiculous (Asian trade nodes)>Gulf of Aden>Zanzibar>Cape Town>Kongo>Ivory Coast>Timbuktu>Tunis trade conga line going and have all the wealth of Africa flowing into our coffers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
How appropriate the Mali ideas are depends in large part on how we import Ghana/Mali into EU4. For example, Mali's first idea is for increased income from vassals and talks about how Mali was always a decentralized affair...if we brought in Ghana into EU4 with some of our more powerful Dukes (Gao?) as autonomous vassals (to break us up a bit and make us a bit less overwhelmingly powerful from game start) then that idea would be amazingly good for us. Rewriting the flavor text seems like a lot of work for questionable gain. On the other hand, adding in ideas for major countries that make it to conversion that don't have ideas on vanilla (Lotharingia? Swabia?) sounds like a fun community project.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
Ghanan Traditions: Land Morale +.15, Tolerance Own +2 1. Ogoonu Virility: Our rulers follow the dictates of the Well Snake to multiply and our dynasty is renowned worldwide for its fecundity, to the point where an Ogoonu who has fewer than half a dozen children is considered effeminate and unmanly. There is always a spare heir to the throne in Ghana! +25% Heir Chance. 2. Taming the Canaries Islands: Despite their proximity to our coast, the islands to our west required multiple naval campaigns to subdue. During this process we learned the secrets of ocean travel, experience that will come in handy with later expeditions. +1 Naval Leader Maneuver. 3. The Swimming Elephant: The pale barbarians to the north tell a story of a land power named Rome fighting a sea power named Carthage, likening it to an elephant fighting a whale. When the elephant learned to swim, the whale was doomed. We have a vast army with staggering manpower, but the barbarians to our north do not yet fear us due to the sea in between. We must learn to become a swimming elephant. -10% Global Ship Cost. 4. Recruiting the Berbers: The bold Muslim warriors of the Maghreb were brought into the Ghanan fold much against their initial desire, but they are our subjects now and the same skill with which they fought us for so many centuries will now crush the foes of the Well Snake. +100% Available Mercenaries. 5. Traditional Ghanan Music: As chronicled by the Medieval scribe Abd Mi'day ibn el Oon, epic poetry put to song was part of West African tradition since before Ghana crossed the Sahara. Today, song whether in praise of the Well Snake, in petition for fertility, or for the glory of the Ogoonu, is still a key element of Ghanan society. Prestige +1 6. Gold for Salt Trade: Life is so much easier when your country owns both ends of the gold and salt trade and you just collect the internal tariff revenue on both ends. Watch as the coffers overflow to bursting! Trade Income +10% 7. Trans-Saharan Slave Trade: The Ghanan occupation of North Africa has led to easy access to Arab and Berber men needed for physical labor in the gold mines of Bure and Bambuk. The enslavement of North Africans and their transportation to the Sub-Saharan region has been decried as immoral, but is immensely profitable. Some of the more avaricious of our lords have suggested seeking a new supply of slaves from among the pale barbarians to our north. Global Trade Power +10 Ghanan Ambitions: +10% Discipline.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 05:54
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:I hear Sicily is a nice source of cash, and close enough to count as "Africa" Well, yes. Everyone knows that Africa ends at the Pyrenees, the Alps, and the Danube.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
At the very least we'll want to split Egypt off.and give our holdings in Egypt and points east to a friendly Ogoonu. That's drat good land and if we start EU4 with Egypt we'll easily be the richest country in the world. Given the gold that coats much of West and North Africa that might be the case anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Spinning off Egypt makes a ton of sense, though. A. The Alexandria trade node doesn't really connect with the rest of Africa and is on a different stream, so we won't be getting any revenue and the riches of Egypt will just idly drift into the hands of the Constantinople and Venice nodes. If we have a ally in Egypt, it can put its efforts to stopping up the Alexandria trade and prevent our enemies from getting rich from it. We merely have to dominate the Gulf of Aden node to make sure that the wonders of the East get shipped to Zanzibar and around Africa rather than up to Alexandria and the Mediterranean. B. As mentioned, there's more than enough of Africa to go around. If we put our minds to it, we're pretty much guaranteed to beat the Euros to the Cape and the creation of a pan-African state. Egypt is much more in the Mediterranean cultural sphere. C. Seriously, it's Egypt. We're already easily the most powerful state on the map, we don't need Alexandria and Cairo to make us even more ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
ZearothK posted:It is, Brazil directs straight to the Ivory Coast trade node, which we can then direct to Timbuktu for extra money if the capital is there. If it in Tunis it will be less profitable to colonize in that direction. Seville (Morocco) will probably be the wealthiest trade node in Ghana, but then there is competition from the Andalusion Ogoonu, which would cut down on profits. Alexandria would also be a very good choice for capital if expansion is directed towards India and beyond, as trade from that direction can be directed to it, but I still think Timbuktu is better, as Asian trade can be directed around the Horn of Africa and towards that capital, gaining in value as it moves, which should be feasible with a monopoly of the provinces in the region. Timbuktu feeds into Tunis and we own every province in Timbuktu. Brazil->Ivory Coast->Timbuktu->Tunis is perfectly legitimate. EDIT: Tunis is probably our best bet if we're African-focused. The only trade nodes we'd own that we'd be out of the loop on are Mauritanian Coast, Safi, and Alexandria. Which, by the way, is why I suggested an Egyptian spinoff vassal/Ogoonu kingdom. Rather than letting our Egyptian lands ship all their goods to Venice and Constantinople, a friendly regime in Alexandria would act as a stopper, preventing the riches of the East from entering Europe by hoarding them for itself. Meanwhile, we set up a glorious trade conga-line from Aden->Zanzibar->Cape Town->Kongo->Ivory Coast->Timbuktu->Tunis, with Brazil also feeding in. Patter Song fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Why couldn't Ghana itself act as that stopper? Alexandria doesn't feed into anything that we own. Now, granted, if we owned all of Aden and were good about shunting it all to Zanzibar, Alexandria's trade would just be Egypt and nothing else, but the fact remains that we aren't going to see a cent out of Egyptian trade revenue, which will all end up in either Constantinople or Venice.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
So do half of the posters here have gout or something?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:They are fake Well, presumably Grey is cooking up a batch of NIs for us, and I'd be shocked if one isn't a nice healthy bump to heir chance. Pakled posted:All sub-saharan Africans are part of the same culture group, so the tax and revoltrisk penalty for holding provinces of those cultures are less than the penalties for holding, say, a Portuguese or Arab province. While this is true, I wouldn't be surprised if we have more North Africans than Sub-Saharans at this point, and except for the Tuareg culture you can find in Tripoli all of the North African cultures are in a different culture group. Patter Song fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Dec 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
Even if you're not using Conquest of Paradise, you might wait until after the 1.4 patch that's coming with it drops on the 14th to start. Even though they said savegame compatibility's not going to be an issue, I'd hate for something to break after the update.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Yeah, move the Heir Chance up to the Traditions. We won't unlock the bonus for some 200 years or so. Also +50% is fine.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Pakled posted:Rome was a shithole around EU4's starting time, and was about two decades removed from its lowest point ever at EU3's start date. It is unsurprising that right-thinking kings seek Romes elsewhere. Was 14th century Rome really worse than 10th or 7th century Rome? The city had quite a few low points.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2014 02:07
|
|