understand for this exception. but is it really need straight date for that event. With events like this could make sure Byzantium not hanging around after 1452 without compromiseNorrefeldt 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.
The first event took place on Christmas 1481, but Granada has the option of not atacking. Historically Castile did not embarck into the discovery of the New World earlier because of the Granada wars. The finishing of Granada before 1492 was very important for Castile, and is very important also in EU2.
But seriously, you are concentrating on the last events of a series destined to make sure that Granada lasts until around 1480. The problem was really the opposite. Left to itself, Castile usually killed Granada in the 1420s. So what we did was to protect Granada from Castile during those six decades, and then make sure that with a high chance Granada was killed between 1480-1490. This thread is full of posts about the situation and how to best tackle it. These events are no quick fix. I am not saying that the situation cannot be improved, but currently the Iberian peninsula is one of the areas that works more historically, while allowing enough freedom to players, and a little less for the AI. As a result the constant complains about the Iberian peninsula have ended.
Why is so important that GRA is finished before 1500?, because then even if Spain has it in the hit list and has the cores, Spain always prefers to declare wars to the Aztecs and Incas than to Granada. Don't ask me why, but that is part of how the AI decides on war. And the result is a grossly ahistorical Muslim Granada lingering around for centuries. The difference with BYZ, is that BYZ is the preferred target of OE once vassalization is ended, so in 9 out of 10 games things work well without need for further measures.
But seriously, you are concentrating on the last events of a series destined to make sure that Granada lasts until around 1480. The problem was really the opposite. Left to itself, Castile usually killed Granada in the 1420s. So what we did was to protect Granada from Castile during those six decades, and then make sure that with a high chance Granada was killed between 1480-1490. This thread is full of posts about the situation and how to best tackle it. These events are no quick fix. I am not saying that the situation cannot be improved, but currently the Iberian peninsula is one of the areas that works more historically, while allowing enough freedom to players, and a little less for the AI. As a result the constant complains about the Iberian peninsula have ended.
Why is so important that GRA is finished before 1500?, because then even if Spain has it in the hit list and has the cores, Spain always prefers to declare wars to the Aztecs and Incas than to Granada. Don't ask me why, but that is part of how the AI decides on war. And the result is a grossly ahistorical Muslim Granada lingering around for centuries. The difference with BYZ, is that BYZ is the preferred target of OE once vassalization is ended, so in 9 out of 10 games things work well without need for further measures.
Why is the union of Spain (1479) set with the marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand??
history shows that it was a dynastic relation and the true merging of Spain came after the death of ferdinand in 1516.
In my opinion 1479 is far to early, and the older system we had was far superior
history shows that it was a dynastic relation and the true merging of Spain came after the death of ferdinand in 1516.
In my opinion 1479 is far to early, and the older system we had was far superior
Toio said:
Perhaps you are overstating your case? Far superior? I don't think you can really claim that it was "far superior" when that gives Aragon 50 to screw things up.
Well, Granada lingering around, if it survives until the discovery of the new world imo wouldn't be that far fetched. If that were the case, they'd have moved on to more lucractive targets, like they did with North Africa and Italy. Sure some hard liners might scoff, but most of them would be content with the amount of riches they could get from the Americas.Fodoron said:
History shows to whom? It is all debatable obviously, but most Spanish historians in the Academy of History believe Spain was born with the arrangement between the Queen of Spain (Isabel) and the King of Sicily (Fernando) that they will both be Queen and King in the respective kingdoms with full rights except dynastic precedence. That agreement signed in Segovia in January 1475 had no precedent in history, and the Union of Castile and Aragon on equal terms not by inheritance, accomplished at the death of Fernando's father, in 1479 was the wonder of Europe.Toio said:
There were obviously risks of rupture between 1479 and 1516, but in the end none materialized. There is also a school that defends that Spain was created in 1715 with the decrees of New Plan, that equalized the laws in most of the kingdom abolishing old priviledges, but the truth is that from 1479, Castile and Aragon acted as a single country, with a single center of command, and as such was recognized internationally. There was a single Spanish ambassador in foreign countries, not two, and except for a brief interval after the death of Isabel, when Fernando remarried, royal marriages were with the ruling house of Spain.
Not sure what you mean, but I guess you don't understand the reconquista mentality. It lasted for 600 years. Granada was able to hold up to 1492 because Castile was weak between 1420 and 1480. A strong Castile or Spain meant the ensuing destruction of Granada. It simply could not be any other way, and by 1200 the Muslims had lost any possibility of holding any land in the Iberian peninsula. It was just a question of who between the Christian kingdoms was going to take the biggest share, and that was Castile.Jinnai said:
The Fuggers event for Spain is a killer for the AI.
A loansize of 1000 is a monstruosity. If the AI or the player is forced to take a loan, something that can happen right with the event, since Spain is always short on money due to colonization, the interests alone over 5 years amount to about 350 ducats. Then we complain that AI colonization goes too slowly.
I propose we change it to a more reasonable number. Let's say 400 ducats.
Also action_b is a death trap for the AI. Can it be any more negative?
A little history: The Fuggers offered Charles the financing of the purchase of the imperial crown in exchange for preferential banking, and with the rents of Castile as guarantee of payment. It was one of the several decisions that Charles took that ended in the rebellion of Comuneros, as Castile saw it as that she was financing the emperor in exchange for nothing, and the Burgundians were seeing as greedy oppressors in Castile, as the king did not take any Spanish advisor.
So I guess the event could be:
And the text can be changed to:
EVENTHIST3154;The Fuggers were a peasant family of weavers from Augsburg during the 15th Century who rose through trade and transactions in money to Bankers of the Habsburgs and the Popes. Jakob Fugger the Rich (1511-1525) controlled European lead, silver and copper production and obtained a monopoly in quicksilver. Anton Fugger (1525-1560) had trading concessions in Chile, Peru and Moscow. However, the company declined by the end of the 16th Century because of state bankruptcies in Spain, family conflicts and lack of interest on the part of the heirs. Financial support from Jakob Fugger allowed young Carlos to win the Imperial crown over a more prestigious François I, something that the king of France never forgave him. However the rents of Castile were mortgaged for several years to pay back the 850,000 florins loaned by the Fuggers at high interest, and the added taxation greatly increased the unhappiness of the Castilians with their foreign king.;;;;;;;;;;7931
Note also that the correct date is 1519 when the big sum was loaned, and to connect with the comuneros event of 1520.
EDIT: Obviously the comuneros event will also be modified to take out that province_revoltrisk and improve it a little. Right now is a little decaf. Cities were burnt and heads rolled because of it.
Code:
#The Fuggers#
event = {
id = 3154
random = no
country = SPA
name = "EVENTNAME3154"
desc = "EVENTHIST3154"
style = 2
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1514 }
offset = 30
deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1520 }
action_a ={ #Let the Fuggers run our Finances#
name = "ACTIONNAME3154A"
command = { type = loansize which = 1000 }
command = { type = treasury value = -100 }
command = { type = merchants value = 6 }
command = { type = inflation value = -5 }
}
action_b ={ #Turn the Fuggers offer down#
name = "ACTIONNAME3154B"
command = { type = treasury value = -300 }
command = { type = stability value = -4 }
command = { type = inflation value = 15 }
}
}I propose we change it to a more reasonable number. Let's say 400 ducats.
Also action_b is a death trap for the AI. Can it be any more negative?
A little history: The Fuggers offered Charles the financing of the purchase of the imperial crown in exchange for preferential banking, and with the rents of Castile as guarantee of payment. It was one of the several decisions that Charles took that ended in the rebellion of Comuneros, as Castile saw it as that she was financing the emperor in exchange for nothing, and the Burgundians were seeing as greedy oppressors in Castile, as the king did not take any Spanish advisor.
So I guess the event could be:
Code:
#The Fuggers#
event = {
id = 3154
random = no
country = SPA
name = "EVENTNAME3154"
desc = "EVENTHIST3154"
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1519 }
offset = 30
deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1520 }
action_a ={ #Let the Fuggers run our Finances#
name = "ACTIONNAME3154A"
command = { type = loansize which = 400 }
command = { type = treasury value = 100 }
command = { type = merchants value = 6 }
command = { type = inflation value = -5 }
command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 436 value = 8 } #Castilla
command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 435 value = 8 } #Leon
command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 439 value = 8 } #Toledo
command = { type = stability value = -2 }
}
action_b ={ #Turn the Fuggers offer down#
name = "ACTIONNAME3154B"
command = { type = treasury value = -100 }
command = { type = stability value = 1 }
command = { type = inflation value = 2 }
command = { type = sleepevent which = 3155 } # The Comuneros
}
}EVENTHIST3154;The Fuggers were a peasant family of weavers from Augsburg during the 15th Century who rose through trade and transactions in money to Bankers of the Habsburgs and the Popes. Jakob Fugger the Rich (1511-1525) controlled European lead, silver and copper production and obtained a monopoly in quicksilver. Anton Fugger (1525-1560) had trading concessions in Chile, Peru and Moscow. However, the company declined by the end of the 16th Century because of state bankruptcies in Spain, family conflicts and lack of interest on the part of the heirs. Financial support from Jakob Fugger allowed young Carlos to win the Imperial crown over a more prestigious François I, something that the king of France never forgave him. However the rents of Castile were mortgaged for several years to pay back the 850,000 florins loaned by the Fuggers at high interest, and the added taxation greatly increased the unhappiness of the Castilians with their foreign king.;;;;;;;;;;7931
Note also that the correct date is 1519 when the big sum was loaned, and to connect with the comuneros event of 1520.
EDIT: Obviously the comuneros event will also be modified to take out that province_revoltrisk and improve it a little. Right now is a little decaf. Cities were burnt and heads rolled because of it.
Last edited:
I agree with that modification. I don't know if we further have to link it with my suggested Spanish event "Milan imperial fief" in action_A IF it will approved, of course!
I think the reason for a 1000 loansize is due to the fact that Spain had several bankruptcies, so apart from the two coded one, a third provoked by the impossibility for the player to pay the loan can be accepted.
Mind that Austria takes a "500 loansize" from its own "Fugger event"...
Apart from the bankruptcies event included in agceep, couldn't we have something similar to those events (with softened effects, of course!) to represent the difficulties in payment which France and Spain had in 1550s and obliging them to sign the treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis?
I think the reason for a 1000 loansize is due to the fact that Spain had several bankruptcies, so apart from the two coded one, a third provoked by the impossibility for the player to pay the loan can be accepted.
Mind that Austria takes a "500 loansize" from its own "Fugger event"...
Apart from the bankruptcies event included in agceep, couldn't we have something similar to those events (with softened effects, of course!) to represent the difficulties in payment which France and Spain had in 1550s and obliging them to sign the treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis?
Fodoron said:
Yea, its about time this has been brought up,
thank you fodoron,
modders can now see that huge loan sizes are bad for all.
Fodoron said:
does this article below not indicate that castile and aragon were still seen as seperate nations: the marriage was not recognised by the pope due to the fact that isabella and ferdinand were related. and without this marriage no dynastic relation between this nations would have existed.??
Ferdinand became king of Aragon at the death of his father in 1479, the
same year Isabella succeeded in finally securing the throne of Castile.
It was their task to restore order and to strengthen royal authority.
Isabella died in 1504, Ferdinand in 1516. Through a series of historical
accidents premature deaths and the madness of Joanna, oldest surviving
daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella the Spanish crown came on the death
of Ferdinand into the hands of Joanna's son Charles. His father had been
the archduke Philip, son of Emperor Maximilian I. Since there was no
surviving heir to the second marriage of Ferdinand (to a French
princess), Charles inherited in 1516 both Castile and Aragon and
preserved the newly acquired unity of Spain. In addition to Aragon and
Castile, Charles inherited, as king of Spain, Naples and Sicily and the
great Spanish claims in the New World.
Wasn't Phillip, Archduke of Burgundy, also regent of Castile from 1504 to 1506? So maybe Spain could be formed in 1506 too or if we want something very compilcated: Castile merged with Burgundy in 1506 and merged with Aragon in 1516!Toio said:
In fact Maximilian I had a second regency in Low countries only after his son's death, so Austria should release Burgundy for the period Phillip reigned...
Me too. Isn't it possible to lower the loansize to 300 instead of 400 in involved event, or was it really intended for Spain to go bankrupt easily..?Toio said:
No need to change history that much. We can asume Charles managed to get the crown with or without Fuggers.Bordic said:
Austria should change that value down to perhaps 250 as it is a smaller country.
Hurting the AIs economies sounds like fun, but then the player gets around it and the AI is seriously hurt and we complain that it does not perform. The event bankrupcies are late in the colonization period, while this one is at its peak. Charles did not have great finantial problems because his line of credit was good, and the New World riches were amazing starting around 1530s.
Hard to say since this is one of the vanilla events. My guess is that it was designed so Spain could get large wads of cash for her expenses, and then pay in inflation and interests. But that is not how it works. The AI is struggling with a tremendous lack of funds to pay for the humongously expensive colonization (ahistorical), and this only sets her colonization even further back. For the player it is like a joke when he lacks a few ducats for a forced withdrawal from an event, and he is forced to borrow 1000 ducats. Considering how bad is inflation for Spain, he has to keep most of the cash iddle for five years, while paying a huge amount in interests for a money he is not using. Otherwise he has to add a further 2% to his inflation.YodaMaster said:
If people agree, 300 can be a better value then.
Depends how you define separate nations. Are England and Scotland separate nations today? Opinions abound, but my arguments if I were defending your position would be better than yours. What about the title of king of Spain was instituted by Felipe V around 1715 substituting those of King of Castile, Aragon, and Navarra. Yeah, let's keep all three separate until 1715 then. That ought to be more correct, right?Toio said:
This debate has been going on forever, and will never be settled, because it depends on your definition of country. I have been at both sides of it. But really the deciding point is that the union at 1479, or 1490 the latest is what works better. We have tried also the union at 1516, so we know. A war between Castile and Aragon after 1479 is absolute crap.
Last edited:
We can debate the possible different interpretations of when Spain became united, but for an historical mod the preference is clear: a sooner united Spain has a better chance than a later united one (still it is likely to fail) of performing as well as it did historically.
Modifications for a proper centralization setting for Spain:
Remove Red line in the following event:
Include Yellow line in the following event:
Remove Red line in the following event:
Code:
#El Escorial stands in Unearthly Glory#
event = {
id = 285701
random = no
country = SPA
name = "Finally the Escorial is finished"
desc = "The works of the monastery of El Escorial still constitutes an expression meaning something of an extraordinary dimension that takes forever to finish. The palace-monastery was finished in 1584, 21 years after it was started. In 1567 its main architect, Juan Bautista de Toledo, died, and was substituted by Juan de Herrera, who gave name to the Herrerian architectonic style characterized by austere straight lines with little ornamentation and the contrast between granite stone walls and black slate roofing. From the monastery of El Escorial, the Spanish Habsburgs ruled their empire. El Escorial lost royal favour when the French Bourbon dynasty, with a more Versaillesc taste, was inaugurated in 1705, but it is still today the royal pantheon."
style = 2
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1585 }
offset = 30
deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1586 }
action_a = {
name = "A proper place for our Catholic King!"
command = { type = vp value = 50 }
command = { type = stability value = 1 }
command = { type = relation which = PAP value = 50 }
command = { type = relation which = HAB value = 50 }
command = { type = relation which = FRA value = -50 }
command = { type = relation which = ENG value = -50 }
command = { type = relation which = HOL value = -50 }
command = { type = DIP which = 2 value = 60 }
command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = -1 }
[color=BrightRed]command = { type = domestic which = centralization value = 1 }[/color]
command = { type = infra value = 500 }
}
}
Code:
# The War of Navarra.
# By Fodoron
event = {
id = 285042
random = no
country = SPA
name = "EVENTNAME285042"
desc = "EVENTHIST285042"
style = 2
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME285042A"
command = { type = stability value = 1 }
command = { type = inherit which = NAV }
[color=Yellow] command = { type = domestic which = centralization value = -1 }[/color]
}
}Not because it is my event, but wasn't the purpose of building El Escorial also a better centralization in domestic affairs?