• 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.
Champagne just happens to be the first in that set of events, but I was talking about all of them. I was at war with France just about every 5 years or so during the 15th century until I dismembered them in 1475...however I lost all of my cores on France in 1447 because there was a year span where I wasn't at war and we'd hid the point where we'd decided that England needed to have decisively won the war by. I don't really see how it makes sense to say I'd never recover any of those French provinces when I managed to do so within the next two decades. (I even did so using the York leader that you get in the ahistorical path of the WotR where the Lancastrians win and in the event about the heirs of the York it mentions that you might use them to go a conquering in France.)

I don't necessarily have a good suggestion mind but just wanted to point out that it was a frustrating as a player when I'd done everything to continue the war (besides being perpetually at war which was never the case in the HYW) - including keeping Burgundy in my sphere.

The last point "keeping Burgundy in your sphere" means that the Treaty of Arras did not mess with your burgundian alliance. Then with my suggested trigger that checks the ENG-BUR alliance the event would not have happened in your game. The same trigger could be applied to every ENG event in which the lost alliance with BUR is mentioned as the reason for the lost control.
 
I agree but still...I mean let's postulate a scenario where England has all of Brittany, Maine, Normandy, Caux, Picardie, Calais, Orelans and Gascogne but Burgundy is now firmly in the French sphere. Is it really realistic to remove all the cores on provinces they don't own at that time with the suggestion that they failed in the HYW? Clearly that war is still very much alive even if it wasn't actively being prosecuted at the time that the event fires.
 
I agree but still...I mean let's postulate a scenario where England has all of Brittany, Maine, Normandy, Caux, Picardie, Calais, Orelans and Gascogne but Burgundy is now firmly in the French sphere. Is it really realistic to remove all the cores on provinces they don't own at that time with the suggestion that they failed in the HYW? Clearly that war is still very much alive even if it wasn't actively being prosecuted at the time that the event fires.

IMO yes. Historically ENG lost it´s chance to establish a rule in France where they were seen as the rightful french king, when BUR changed sides to support DAU so most french were set against ENG, and Jeanne d´Arc appeared and the french discovered their own nationality and saw the english as foreign invaders.

ENG may be powerful enough to still conquer France, Burgundy and Russia ;-) - but they should lose their cores if they don´t own those provinces (or are still actively at war to get them) a few years after the events of the treaty of arras.

Asking the other way around: Do you really want the English having a core on Champagne and Nivernais in 1820 because the french AI was not able to take it from you while you gave away both provinces by event to the Burgundians who changed side to the french?
 
IMO yes. Historically ENG lost it´s chance to establish a rule in France where they were seen as the rightful french king, when BUR changed sides to support DAU so most french were set against ENG, and Jeanne d´Arc appeared and the french discovered their own nationality and saw the english as foreign invaders.

ENG may be powerful enough to still conquer France, Burgundy and Russia ;-) - but they should lose their cores if they don´t own those provinces (or are still actively at war to get them) a few years after the events of the treaty of arras.

Asking the other way around: Do you really want the English having a core on Champagne and Nivernais in 1820 because the french AI was not able to take it from you while you gave away both provinces by event to the Burgundians who changed side to the french?

I'm not saying that they should forever remain national cores but that they should be degraded slowly - especially if England still has a sizable presence in the game. After all, I didn't lose any cores on provinces I still owned and presumably will keep those cores till 1820 as long as I don't give any of them up to any nation.

I think at least a better start would be to check again here if France is of a reasonable size. If it is then it has the legitimacy to causes England's claims to degrade (or disappear) but if it doesn't then France is still in the process of establishing its legitimacy no matter what one duchy (Burgundy) decides. Alternatively (and perhaps more appropriately), we could do something like this:

Code:
#(1451-1483) [color=red]We've lost the loyalty of Gascogne for good[/color] [color=yellow]Our claim to Gascogne has been underminded[/color]
event = {
	id = 164196
	trigger = {
		core = { province = 424 data = -1 }
		atwar = no
		NOT = {
			event = 164180 #ENG: English Final Victory
			owned = { province = 424 data = -1 }
		}
	}
	random = no
	country = ENG
	name = "EVENTNAME164196" #[color=red]We've lost Gascogne for good[/color] [color=yellow]Our claim to Gascogne has been underminded[/color]
	desc = "EVENTHIST164196"
	#-#

	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1451 }
	offset = 360
	deathdate = { year = 1820 }

	action_a = {
		trigger = { 
			[color=yellow]NOT = {
				someof = {
					number = 6
					#list of about the 20 provinces that constitute the battleground for France in the HYW
				}		
				alliance = { country = ENG country = BUR }
				vassal = { country = ENG country = BUR }
			}
		}[/color]
		name = "ACTIONNAME164196A" #Our claims fall on deaf ears...
		command = { type = removecore[color=yellow]_national[/color] which = 424 } #Gascogne
	}
	[color=yellow]action_b = {
		trigger = { 
			OR = {
				someof = {
					number = 6
					#list of about the 20 provinces that constitute the battleground for France in the HYW
				}		
				alliance = { country = ENG country = BUR }
				vassal = { country = ENG country = BUR }
			}
		}
		name = "ACTIONNAME164196A" #We'll be back...
		command = { type = removecore_national which = 424 } #Gascogne
		command = { type = addcore_casusbelli which = 424 } #Gascogne
	}[/color]
}
As the war of attrition in France dragged on, the foremost victims were the common people who lived off the land. The taxes, raids, counter raids and levies had tried and tested the people's tolerance for the harsh rule of the English Kings. It was clear that with the last English presence removed from the province, Gascogne was forever lost. Having lost control of the province the native populace has switched its loyalties.

And then perhaps we could later have events that remove the cb provinces - like when England has fewer/no provinces on the continent.
 
Another a HYW note but why can the English Final Victory only occur before Dauphine becomes France? I get that Dauphine becoming France signals some no small measure of legitimacy but if England gets rid of France while it still has a monarch with at least some claim to the French throne (i.e. the House of Lancaster rules on) then England shouldn't suffer any of the debilitating events setup for when it wins the HYW? Isn't that still a win of sorts?
 
Another a HYW note but why can the English Final Victory only occur before Dauphine becomes France? I get that Dauphine becoming France signals some no small measure of legitimacy but if England gets rid of France while it still has a monarch with at least some claim to the French throne (i.e. the House of Lancaster rules on) then England shouldn't suffer any of the debilitating events setup for when it wins the HYW? Isn't that still a win of sorts?

IMO no. England only has the right on the throne in french eyes because the french king accepted the, according to salic law, illegal english claim on the throne through the female line and made him his heir and at the same time disinherited his own son the Dauphin which deepened the rift right through france.

When the Dauphine manages to be crowned and to sit on the throne of FRAnce then that makes any other person claiming to be king of france an imposter.

So the english final victory is not just to become king of france by controlling Paris, but to prevent the other pretender on the throne the dauphine to become the real french king (which would unite most french behind him against the foreign english).
 
IMO no. England only has the right on the throne in french eyes because the french king accepted the, according to salic law, illegal english claim on the throne through the female line and made him his heir and at the same time disinherited his own son the Dauphin which deepened the rift right through france.

When the Dauphine manages to be crowned and to sit on the throne of FRAnce then that makes any other person claiming to be king of france an imposter.

So the english final victory is not just to become king of france by controlling Paris, but to prevent the other pretender on the throne the dauphine to become the real french king (which would unite most french behind him against the foreign english).

Except that by killing France off - you're revealing that he wasn't really the King. (One's claim loses legitimacy after a while if they don't actually control their kingdom, no? Witness the Yorkists and Tudors!) I mean although unlikely, Dauphine can form France as soon as 1422 - giving England no time to ax the pretender.

The other route for France to form involves them taking control of Champagne (or Il de France) which happens by 1 of 2 paths (ceded by Rump France to Burgundy who cedes to Dauphin) or someone owns it and France controls it (not necessarily own). You've said that it isn't about controlling Paris but point of fact - all England has to do is hold Paris and Champagne indefinitely. :laugh:
 
I'm not saying that they should forever remain national cores but that they should be degraded slowly - especially if England still has a sizable presence in the game. After all, I didn't lose any cores on provinces I still owned and presumably will keep those cores till 1820 as long as I don't give any of them up to any nation.

I think at least a better start would be to check again here if France is of a reasonable size. If it is then it has the legitimacy to causes England's claims to degrade (or disappear) but if it doesn't then France is still in the process of establishing its legitimacy no matter what one duchy (Burgundy) decides. Alternatively (and perhaps more appropriately), we could do something like this:

Code:
#(1451-1483) [color=red]We've lost the loyalty of Gascogne for good[/color] [color=yellow]Our claim to Gascogne has been underminded[/color]
event = {
	id = 164196
	trigger = {
		core = { province = 424 data = -1 }
		atwar = no
		NOT = {
			event = 164180 #ENG: English Final Victory
			owned = { province = 424 data = -1 }
		}
	}
	random = no
	country = ENG
	name = "EVENTNAME164196" #[color=red]We've lost Gascogne for good[/color] [color=yellow]Our claim to Gascogne has been underminded[/color]
	desc = "EVENTHIST164196"
	#-#

	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1451 }
	offset = 360
	deathdate = { year = 1820 }

	action_a = {
		trigger = { 
			[color=yellow]NOT = {
				someof = {
					number = 6
					#list of about the 20 provinces that constitute the battleground for France in the HYW
				}		
				alliance = { country = ENG country = BUR }
				vassal = { country = ENG country = BUR }
			}
		}[/color]
		name = "ACTIONNAME164196A" #Our claims fall on deaf ears...
		command = { type = removecore[color=yellow]_national[/color] which = 424 } #Gascogne
	}
	[color=yellow]action_b = {
		trigger = { 
			OR = {
				someof = {
					number = 6
					#list of about the 20 provinces that constitute the battleground for France in the HYW
				}		
				alliance = { country = ENG country = BUR }
				vassal = { country = ENG country = BUR }
			}
		}
		name = "ACTIONNAME164196A" #We'll be back...
		command = { type = removecore_national which = 424 } #Gascogne
		command = { type = addcore_casusbelli which = 424 } #Gascogne
	}[/color]
}
As the war of attrition in France dragged on, the foremost victims were the common people who lived off the land. The taxes, raids, counter raids and levies had tried and tested the people's tolerance for the harsh rule of the English Kings. It was clear that with the last English presence removed from the province, Gascogne was forever lost. Having lost control of the province the native populace has switched its loyalties.

And then perhaps we could later have events that remove the cb provinces - like when England has fewer/no provinces on the continent.

What about having in the trigger

FRA = { ownerchange = { province = 424 years = 10 } }

10 years or more? 25?
 
What about having in the trigger

FRA = { ownerchange = { province = 424 years = 10 } }

10 years or more? 25?

But isn´t the intention that ENG should lose the cores if anyone owns those provinces and not just FRA? Even if rebels control the provinces the tenous english King´s claim on french provinces should be void.
 
Last edited:
Except that by killing France off - you're revealing that he wasn't really the King. (One's claim loses legitimacy after a while if they don't actually control their kingdom, no? Witness the Yorkists and Tudors!)

Sure - that´s the same reason that the english King´s claim to french provinces on the continent should be lost when they don´t control them.

Edit: And the english are in the lesser position IMO. When the Dauphine manages to be crowned he is accepted by the majority of french as the righful french king. The english on the other hand have a far tenous claim to that crown and are invaders in a foreign land - they are acting on a limited timeline and if they don´t manage to get their "final victory" event to trigger in time then they should lose their claims on non-controlled provinces.

I mean although unlikely, Dauphine can form France as soon as 1422 - giving England no time to ax the pretender.

And absolutely right so. That DAU can form FRA starting 21.10.1422 depends on an ahistorical b choice in the bridge of Montereau event which results in the Dauphine receiving the support of BUR - for a high price. When the french civil war ends, BUR acknowledges DAU as french king and the two forces unite against ENG then ENG should have no chance to hold a legal claim to provinces they don´t control and their only way is to withdraw or force their way by brute force (meaning they still can conqer the provinces if they are stong enough - they just suffer BB for conquering provinces without core).

...
The other route for France to form involves them taking control of Champagne (or Il de France) which happens by 1 of 2 paths (ceded by Rump France to Burgundy who cedes to Dauphin) or someone owns it and France controls it (not necessarily own). You've said that it isn't about controlling Paris but point of fact - all England has to do is hold Paris and Champagne indefinitely. :laugh:

So you are saying that it´s too easy for ENG to win the HYW and we should make it much harder for them to get to a historical result? ^^

IMO the best way would be to change all national cores that ENG gains in France into claimcores. The loss in manpower and the active nationalism should deter any AI England and be a bit more challenge for a human player than the current setup.
 
Last edited:
Sure - that´s the same reason that the english King´s claim to french provinces on the continent should be lost when they don´t control them.

Edit: And the english are in the lesser position IMO. When the Dauphine manages to be crowned he is accepted by the majority of french as the righful french king. The english on the other hand have a far tenous claim to that crown and are invaders in a foreign land - they are acting on a limited timeline and if they don´t manage to get their "final victory" event to trigger in time then they should lose their claims on non-controlled provinces.

And absolutely right so. That DAU can form FRA starting 21.10.1422 depends on an ahistorical b choice in the bridge of Montereau event which results in the Dauphine receiving the support of BUR - for a high price. When the french civil war ends, BUR acknowledges DAU as french king and the two forces unite against ENG then ENG should have no chance to hold a legal claim to provinces they don´t control and their only way is to withdraw or force their way by brute force (meaning they still can conqer the provinces if they are stong enough - they just suffer BB for conquering provinces without core).

Except that you are missing something crucial here. That isn't happening til 1447. If Dauphine becomes France in 1422, England doesn't lose all of its cores. That's kinda why I'm not buying the tale that you are selling. Instead it seems like the timeline is just arbitrary.

So you are saying that it´s too easy for ENG to win the HYW and we should make it much harder for them to get to a historical result? ^^

IMO the best way would be to change all national cores that ENG gains in France into claimcores. The loss in manpower and the active nationalism should deter any AI England and be a bit more challenge for a human player than the current setup.

I could agree on changing the type of core but I wasn't say at all about the ease of England and winning the HYW. I'm saying again that it seems arbitrary. Dauphine could be reduced to 2 provinces but as long as it gets Ile de France or Champagne it suddenly gains enough legitimacy to prevent England from actually winning the HYW? (Which again doesn't mean much because as long as England scoops up all the French provinces by 1447, doesn't lose them to any random third party - it really gets the victory - it keeps its cores and doesn't have to deal with any of the HYW post-victory events as in game we've considered it not to have one.:laugh:)
 
But isn´t the intention that ENG should lose the cores if anyone owns those provinces and not just FRA? Even if rebels control the provinces the tenous english King´s claim on french provinces should be void.

Again kind of spurious date (starting 1447) and why does it matter if someone like Castile or an Irish minor took control of the province? What relevance does that really have in the context of the HYW? As I stated in my last post - let's posit an England that manages to capture all of France but France had already formed. Until 1820, England can now not have a time when anyone else owns anyone of those French provinces or it loses its cores. And we're not taking France taking them mind you but any random country out there. What's the logic that in say 1700, if a Spanish player wrangles Poitou away from England that it loses its cores based on the HYW logic?
 
Except that you are missing something crucial here. That isn't happening til 1447. If Dauphine becomes France in 1422, England doesn't lose all of its cores. That's kinda why I'm not buying the tale that you are selling. Instead it seems like the timeline is just arbitrary.

Dauphine only becomes France in Octobre of 1422 if it choses an ahistorical b choice and pays a price for the support of Burgundy - else DAU can become FRA only from 1429 to 1461.
I see no reason to add events or modify the existing ones to remove english cores sooner just because Dauphine and Burgundy could ahistorically ally much earlier. We could simply say that while they ally they still have some animosities going on that prevent their full cooperation until the time of the treaty of Arras.

However after the time of the historical treaty of Arras when Burgundy changed sides and England lost it´s continental allies the events to remove english cores on french provinces (when not controlled) do make sense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Arras_(1435)
It´s the first time historically the french were united against England as a foreign invader while before England had at least a part of them on it´s side recognizing the english King´s claim and the french fought against each other in a civil war.


And the date isn´t any more arbitrary than the date at which Dauphine can´t become France anymore.

I could agree on changing the type of core but I wasn't say at all about the ease of England and winning the HYW. I'm saying again that it seems arbitrary. Dauphine could be reduced to 2 provinces but as long as it gets Ile de France or Champagne it suddenly gains enough legitimacy to prevent England from actually winning the HYW? (Which again doesn't mean much because as long as England scoops up all the French provinces by 1447, doesn't lose them to any random third party - it really gets the victory - it keeps its cores and doesn't have to deal with any of the HYW post-victory events as in game we've considered it not to have one.:laugh:)

IMO it *ought* to be hard for the english to actually win the war. One reason I see is that they did lose the war once before and lost their continental empire a hundred years before:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/France_1154_Eng.jpg
The other reason is that the angevin possessions in France never were actually part of England but only united through the king´s person who ruled both as King of Enland and e.g. Duke of Normandy. It´s one thing to have the King of England rule french provinces as Duke of Normandy and vassal of the french king - but to have the same provinces become part of England is something else.

Edit: Just remembered a 3rd reason - the english need those events to lose the cores if they don´t own e.g. Champagne because they have events to receive e.g. Champagne from Dauphine immediately without a peace deal if they control it. So if they can easily gain Champagne they should easily lose the core after Arras.
 
Last edited:
Again kind of spurious date (starting 1447) and why does it matter if someone like Castile or an Irish minor took control of the province? What relevance does that really have in the context of the HYW? As I stated in my last post - let's posit an England that manages to capture all of France but France had already formed. Until 1820, England can now not have a time when anyone else owns anyone of those French provinces or it loses its cores. And we're not taking France taking them mind you but any random country out there. What's the logic that in say 1700, if a Spanish player wrangles Poitou away from England that it loses its cores based on the HYW logic?

Well, we have to have one point in time at which provinces that have not been conquered by the english cease to be english cores because they historically lost them and would have a harder time taking them. If England is ahistorically strong then it still can conquer all those provinces. But then to the full price in BB. Extending the hundred years war to the 400 or 500 years war because England is stronger than historical and manages to maintain a foothold on the continent yet somehow is still unable to conquer all it´s cores goes into the direction beyond ahistorical and into fantasy.

It would be like saying that the Ottomans should never lose the core on Hungary if someone else than Austria conquers it. Sure the Ottomans conquered Hungary and ruled it a hundred years - but then they lost it and the removal of the cores under conditions pushes them towards losing all the provinces. England if it manages to hold most but not all of it´s continental possesions, should be -after the treaty of Arras - pushed towards not conquering more of them and slowly losing the rest.
 
Last edited:
All I want to see is that FRA nevers forms prior to Joan of arc. The novility did not all support the dauphine prior to this.

Also, Ile of france was in English and not Burgundain hands
 
Toio said:
All I want to see is that FRA nevers forms prior to Joan of arc. The novility did not all support the dauphine prior to this.

That is the current setup for most games. Only in the few games in which DAU choses the ahistorical b option to NOT commit the murder on the bridge of Montereau do they receive the burgundian support early (for a price) and are they able to become FRA already in 1422.

Also, Ile of france was in English and not Burgundain hands

To what do you refer here? ENG usually inherits FRA and so owns the Ile de France in most of my games.
 
That is the current setup for most games. Only in the few games in which DAU choses the ahistorical b option to NOT commit the murder on the bridge of Montereau do they receive the burgundian support early (for a price) and are they able to become FRA already in 1422.



To what do you refer here? ENG usually inherits FRA and so owns the Ile de France in most of my games.

IMO , thats not accurate, because if ENG fail to destroy "old" FRA prior to a certain date, then DAU inherit "old" FRA and not ENG. With this FRA will form from DAU.

Change is needed to prevent DAU becaming FRA if ENG fail to take "old" FRA
 
Updated my post 79, added suggestion to change the english core on Paris and Normandy in 1419 from a national to a claimcore.

Another change I suggest: Maine should not become a national core, but only a claimcore for England. The raised RR in Paris would be no longer needed if Paris is - as I suggested in my other post - lowered from a national core of ENG to a claimcore that has lower manpower and nationalism.

Code:
#(1424-1425) Bedford is granted the Duchy of Anjou
event = {
	id = 164177
	trigger = {
		event = 170288 #FRA: Treaty of Troyes
		owned = { province = 385 data = -1 }
		OR = {
			owned = { province = 383 data = -1 } #Rouen and border provinces
			owned = { province = 384 data = -1 }
			owned = { province = 410 data = -1 }
			owned = { province = 411 data = -1 }
			owned = { province = 412 data = -1 }
			owned = { province = 413 data = -1 }
			owned = { province = 414 data = -1 }
			owned = { province = 416 data = -1 }
			owned = { province = 417 data = -1 }
		}
	}
	random = no
	country = ENG
	name = "EVENTNAME164177" #Bedford is Granted the Duchy Lands of Anjou
	desc = "EVENTHIST164177"
	#-#The Treaty of Troyes bound the English to subdue the lands held by the Dauphin and his supporters. Though the Treaty guaranteed a status quo for those who swore allegiance to the King of England, any who refused had, by the same stipulation, commited treason. Thus, the lands, titles and possessions of the traitors, indeed their very lives snd livelihood, were now forfeit. Their material wealth was to be seized and resumed to the Crown, whom was free to distribute such wealth as they saw fit. In late spring of 1424, by letters pattent issued in the infant King Henry VI's name, John Duke Bedford and Regent of France was given King Rene I's lands in France, along with the Duchy of Alencon. The Duchy of Anjou was to become a formal possession of the Crown of France. Such a move was just as political and militant, as it was legal. The English were preparing to subdue French resistance in the counties of Maine and Anjou.

	date = { day = 1 month = april year = 1424 }
	offset = 60
	deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 1425 }

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME164177A" #Submit to our new lord Bedford, Regent of France!
		command = { type = addcore[color=yellow]_claim[/color] which = 412 } #Maine
		command = { type = relation which = PRO value = -50 }
		command = { type = relation which = DAU value = -50 }
		command = { type = relation which = BUR value = -25 }
		command = { type = relation which = BRI value = -25 }
		[color=red]command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 385 value = 2 } #Ile de France[/color]
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME164177B" #We need not further punish Rene I
		command = { type = addcore[color=yellow]_casusbelli[/color] which = 412 } #Maine
		command = { type = relation which = PRO value = -25 }
		command = { type = relation which = DAU value = -50 }
		command = { type = relation which = BUR value = -15 }
		command = { type = relation which = BRI value = -15 }
		[color=red]command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 385 value = 2 } #Ile de France[/color]
	}
}

In the HYW ENG event "final victory" the provincial revoltrisk of Maine is lowered by -4. Where is that provincial RR raised?
 
Last edited:
164217 in standard England event file.

Thanks, just read through it. Shouldn´t that event be in the HYW ENG file?
And should the trigger not check that ENG actually controls the province and not just owns it? Currently ENG may own the province but it may be already controlled by rebels or someone else when the event fires and the rebels drive someone else than ENG away?

Code:
#(1419-1430) Maine and Anjou are ours
event = {
	id = 164217
	trigger = {
		event = 170288 #FRA: Treaty of Troyes
		owned = { province = 412 data = -1 }
                [color=yellow]control = { province = 412 data = -1 }[/color]
	}
	random = no
	country = ENG
	name = "EVENTNAME164217" #Maine and Anjou are ours
	desc = "EVENTHIST164217"
	#-#The counties of Maine and then Anjou fell into the hands of the English. Despite incredible gains in Maine, a small but significant portion of Anjou remained in the hands of Dauphinists. From their strategic position on the north and south banks of the Loire, the French rebels would harass the English lines of supply and communication, undermining England's rule and the stability of the region.

	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1419 }
	offset = 30
	deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 1430 }

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME164217A" #Keep an eye on the rabble then...
		command = { type = revolt which = 412 } #Maine
		command = { type = relation which = PRO value = -50 }
		command = { type = relation which = DAU value = -50 }
		command = { type = relation which = BRI value = -25 }
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 412 value = 4 } #Maine
		command = { type = provincetax which = 412 value = -2 } #Maine
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 385 value = -2 } #Ile de France
	}
}

Edit:
In HYW_ENG file event 164181 the addcore command in action a should be changed to addcore_claim too.

Dito for event 164182 addcore --> addcore_claim
 
Last edited: