1700AD Scenario Development Thread

[awesome]

No. That is grossly misinformed.
The Nguyen lords conquered Champa. That was it.
.

Huh. Thought I had read that somewhere. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Leoreth]

On a side note: Is it possible to give the "switch" popup for every respawning civ? I mean not only for this scenario, but also for the base mod...it would be fun to play some of them, even without UHVs.

It's not that easily possible because the switch has to be timed and the respawn dates are dynamic.

Also is this a good time to mention South Africa, Canada and Australia again?

No

 

[yurisusuki]

Leoreth and abouth Vikings?

At 1700 we have Denmark–Norway and Sweden..you will made just sweden and make denmark-norway independent? or make both like one civ?

 

[Leoreth]

Both into one. That's what happens in regular games too after all.

 

[Wilhelm Meister]

Can't wait to see this scenario, is there any prediction about it's release?

 

[baseballpie]

Can't wait to see this scenario, is there any prediction about it's release?

Yes. It is released when it's done.

 

[borhap88]

On a side note: Is it possible to give the "switch" popup for every respawning civ? I mean not only for this scenario, but also for the base mod...it would be fun to play some of them, even without UHVs.

Just switch by cheat code (I don't remember, CTRL + Z or something like this). This is the way I used to play India when it respawns in modern era

 

[Leoreth]

Counter question: will you hold me accountable for anything I would give as an answer?

 

[soul-breathing]

Counter question: will you hold me accountable for anything I would give as an answer?

How to deal with the British, French and Dutch Trading Company conquest? Would it happen after 1700AD? If so, then whether England and France have rifling at the beginnig or not?

 

[Leoreth]

They have Rifling and will start with their possessions in Asia.

 

[soul-breathing]

They have Rifling and will start with their possessions in Asia.

But is it too crowd? In 1700, England had Madras, France had Pondicherry, Netherland had Ceylon and Portugal has Goa. It will be very crowd in South India

 

[Leoreth]

With the current city setup, England will control Bombay, Calcutta and Madras, France will control Cochin, the Netherlands will control Ceylon.

 

[Hightower]

With the current city setup, England will control Bombay, Calcutta and Madras, France will control Cochin, the Netherlands will control Ceylon.

That sounds like the Mughals will be a lot weaker than they actually were in 1700, though I understand the space issues. Also, Cochin was Dutch in 1700, and I don't think the French ever controlled it (Portuguese from 1503 to 1663, Dutch from 1663 to 1814, British thereafter).

Here's a (rather over-inclusive) map of the maximum French control in India, around 1750:

 

[iOnlySignIn]

I was hoping that the player as England gets to trigger the Trading Company Event and conquer India manually in this scenario.

Anyway, Bombay + Calcutta + Madras is actually a great setup (probably my favorite). Rule Britannia!

 

[Leoreth]

You can conquer the rest of India manually, isn't that enough?

 

[DC123456789]

If you're going to give France Cochin, make it historical for them first. (It's actually not, last time I checked)

In my opinion, you should do away with British Madras, put French Pondicherry in its place, and just make Cochin Portuguese or independent (to represent Mysore), since that will give France a more historical holding, with Britain already holding enough in my opinion for 1700.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

You can conquer the rest of India manually, isn't that enough?

I suppose it's necessary for a UHV deadline as early as 1730.

But that is not historical. A 1700 map with the Bombay - Madras - Calcutta trio of British cities is not historical. It should be just Madras, perhaps with a huge stack of TC army Redcoats and Cannons.

And the English expansion UHV should be changed to "by 1775", for all Scenarios. There should be more ways to play an English start in 1700 than a mad dash towards Delhi. Determinism in terms of player strategy is not a good thing.

 

[Leoreth]

It's also not historical to find Germany united with Prussia controlling Frankfurt and Hamburg, but that's exactly what you'll get.

The scenario isn't supposed to be a historical snapshot of exactly 1700 AD. Anachronisms are necessary in some places to allow a desirable development of the world while playing the game.

 

[teriaky]

Could Oman be represented by Arabia?

 

[iOnlySignIn]

It's also not historical to find Germany united with Prussia controlling Frankfurt and Hamburg, but that's exactly what you'll get.

The scenario isn't supposed to be a historical snapshot of exactly 1700 AD. Anachronisms are necessary in some places to allow a desirable development of the world while playing the game.

That's a very valid point, and one I think you should stick to as a general principle.

But I think the case of British India and Germany is slightly different here. Germany is limited by how crowded the map is in Europe - without starting with the western half of it, it won't possibly have the sufficient Production or Research to do what it's supposed to do. England does not have this same problem in the 1700 scenario - it can do just as well whether it starts with 1 city in India or 3. I just think it's more fun for the former case, but perhaps it's better to try and see first.

TL;DR it's a difference between "could" (Germany) and "should" (England).

Well, as I think about it perhaps it is necessary for AI England. 90% of the time they never do anything in India, even after the Rifling TC change. Perhaps starting them with 3 cities already there would change that. But for the Human player that's less of a challenge and hence less fun for me.