AGC: Spain

[Lucius Sulla]

AGC: Spain

This thread deals with Spain and the countries that composed it, that is Castilla, Aragon, Navarra and Granada.

I will edit this first post whenever any new proposal is added, modified, in test process, or submitted. Unless stated clearly that one matter is closed, everything is open to discussion.

I still have to think of a good tag mode (colours, indications... whatever) that I will feel comfortable with, indicating the progress of the topics.

It is my intent in this thread, specially event-wise, to define turning points in the history of Spain and the kingdoms that formed Spain. I know there were a lot of events in Spanish history, but I would like only the ones that enhance historical sense in a great measure, and turning points of inner and outer policy.

(For example, I was tempted to introduce the problems with 'La Mesta', the organization of the wool exports, that made Castillian trade policy so mercantilist... but I feel this can be already reflected by the possible decissions in IP adjustment, with the standard stability hits... Same with Castillian courts, most of the revolts... etc)

Last update of this list: January 7th 2003

History:

- Yet more changes in the Spanish Leaders files, after finding new threads in the Spanish boards. 30-XII-2002

- Creation of the Granada (E) Chapter.
- Alvaro de Luna and Civil war events for Castille (both the one for Juan II and the one for Enrique IV 31-XII-2002

- Added links to new leaders.spa and monarchs.cas files (in chapters A.2, and B.2)
- Added a new idea for a more flavoured aragon origined Spain in C.3 2-I-2003

- More changes to Monarchs.Cas
- Issues with the capitals of Castille and Spain (in B.1, A.3 and B.3)
- (Soon to come, still looking for some additional answers) Introduction of Navarra's events, leaders, etc...
- Issues with Pyrinees provinces and events about their culture&control (C.1 and A.3) 3-I-2003

- New Remark in the chapter B.1
- Starting the D) Navarre chapter (lots of thanks to twoflower!) 7-I-2003


The objective of this thread is to be a place of polite discussion for getting a more realistic performance of Spain in the Grand Campaign.

The fields of discussion for each country will be classified in x fields:
1) Terrain values (trade goods, production&trade values, population, cultures) and initial settings
2) Leaders & Monarchs
3) Events
4) Artificial Intelligence

Each country will have a separate chapter in the list:

A) Spain
B) Castille
C) Aragon
D) Navarra
E) Granada

So, for example, B.2 will detail any proposals about Castille's leaders&monarchs. I would thank any comment or reply to be preceded by the chapter(s) it will deal with, in the tittle of the post.

A) Spain

A.1 Terrain Values and Initial Settings

Spain is not an initial country, so, nothing can be discussed here. For Terrain values, refer to the corresponding B.1, C.1 and D.1 chapters.

A.2 Leaders & Monarchs

The Spanish monarchs seem to be well adjusted in the AGC.

* Only a minor change occurs to me. The event that forms Spain, should be triggered exactly by the king of Aragon's (Fernando 'el católico') death in January of 1516, so Cardinal Cisneros would indeed appear as the first Spanish monarch. Please see B.2 about kings of Castille. And see C.3 about Aragon forming Spain.

The leaders are just another matter. I see three different matters here:

* Some Spanish leaders are completely underrated. Specially El Gran Capitan and Alessandro Farnesse, who were the best generals of their time. Some leaders have very unaccurate data, as Marques de Lede, whose start and death date is completely incorrect. This has been discussed in this thread .

- ID 09741 El Gran Capitan: From 4/4/4 to 4/6/6/1
- ID 09742 Prospero Colonna: From 3/3/3 to 3/3/4. Both of these as seen in my leader/army discussion thread.
- ID 09763 Alvaro de Bazan: From 3/4/4 to 5/4/5. The Marques of Santa Cruz was the best fleet admiral of his time, as tested by the big naval battles of Lepanto and San Miguel, where he defeated completely the Turkish and the French fleets. Start date should change from 1531 to 1555 (they are mistaking him with his father).
- ID 09774 Alessandro Farnesse: From 3/4/4/1 to 3/6/6/2. The great Maurice of Nassau (4/5/5/1) could never win against him, and only started to impose in the dutch conflict after Farnesse had to leave the theatre of operations, terminally ill. He performed some of the most famous and well done sieges of the world militar history (Maastrich and Amberes). Winner of Naumur, Malinas, Courtrai, Breda... Winner against the French protestants, he attacked them and liberated Paris from their siege. And a lot, a LOT more.
- ID 09788 Marques de Lede: From 2/2/2/1 to 3/3/3. Reasons also in the mentioned thread .

* Some leaders did not exist as Spanish leaders (Armello, Issenbourg), or were not really militars (Alveroni). There are 6 in total (reasons in the previously mentioned thread , too) - EDIT: added 2 more
- ID 09780 Méndez de Haro
- ID 09784 La Fuente
- ID 09789 Issembourg
- ID 09791 Alveroni
- ID 09792 De Leyva
- ID 09794 Armello

ADDED:

- ID 09797 Bernardo Galvez (He was not an admiral... all anphibian operations he performed were done by admiral Solano).
- ID 09795 Moncada. There is no admiral of relevance called Moncada in that time. There was a captain called Moncada... in the "invincible" armada.

EDIT: All leaders but ID 09797 (Galvez as an admiral) and 09791 (Alveroni) should remain, giving more richness to the Spanish leaders file with lower ranked generals and admirals.

* Some leaders who were very important&famous in Spanish military history, are not pressent and should replace in game the ones eliminated. So far, I have thought of these (the suggested stats will probably change with the ongoing discussion and are movement/fire/shock/siege):

- Blas de Lezo, awesome Spanish naval commander of the XVII century. 4/4/4 (I still feel this should be higher, but I accept and understand Peter Ebbesen's and Chema_Cagi's arguments)
- Gravina, Spanish chief admiral at Trafalgar. 4/3/4
- La Romana, cavalry leader in the Spanish Independence wars against Napoleon. 4/1/3 (EDIT: From 2 in fire to 1)
- Marques de Pescara: Start Date 1516, deathdate 1526. Suggested stats: 4/4/3. As said before, he developed the techniques of attack with arquebus, and the start of the lightining shock tactics of the Tercios.
- Legazpi, conquistador of the Filipinas. 5/2/2 (special:conquistador)
- Pedro Navarro, general of the Napolitan campaign and winner of Oran, with Cardinal Cisneros. I suggest a 3/3/3/1. He was one of the first professional militar engineers and siege experts.

EDIT: Adding 2 more to replace the 2 'false' admirals:

- The Duke of Feria: Governor of Milan, victory in the Campaign of the Addo, viceroy of Catalonia, man of confidence of Olivares in Flanders and Italy. With Spinola he brought incredible successes in that time to the Spanish army, in the last time of brilliance of the Spanish tercios. Victories fo Brisach, Reihnfelden, Constanza... Start date: 1615. Death date: 1635. Stats: 4/4/4.

- Luis Fajardo (admiral): Defeated the Count of Cumberland in 1596, won the naval battle of Las Salinas against the Dutch and in after that, in front of the coast of Portugal, in 1606. In 1607 he won the great naval battle of San Vicente (there are even paintings about it...). That same year he captured 22 ships in Tunis... Suggested stats: 3/3/3. Start Date:1592. Deathdate:1617.

- You can find here the new Spanish Leaders file (On hold until patch 1.06!)

A.3 Events

* Related with B.3 and C.3. Spain should be formed by Castille after the death of Fernando of Aragon, and by Aragon after the death of Isabel I of Castille. It should inhering the Aragonese claims on Navarra and Rouseillon.

* Spanish army formation events. There should be a thread of events detailing the formation of the Tercios, and its disbanding. In development, both the reasons for them to form and for them to disband, and thus the general quality and professionality of the Spanish army. Some things have been discussed in this thread .

Line could be:

- Event: Ordinances of Segovia and Tortosa, around 1503. Would raise the Quality IP and the land technology investment
- Event: Formation of the Tercios. Would have as a trigger being Spain, having both Granada and Sicily provinces (italian experience and the end of the reconquista needed). Would raise the Quality and Offensive IP sliders. Startdate from 1520 to deathdate 1600.
- Event: Second Bankruptcy. The delays (or abscence) of the pays for the Spanish army lowered its quality badly.
- Event: Defeat of the Tercios. If by 1670 Spain has not triggered the 'Repatriation of the netherlands events', Spain and its Tercios should be considered defeated, and thus the Spanish army would go through a reconversion, and starting his quick descense to the hell of bad quality (and lose of offensive impulse). This event thus, should be asleep by the 'Repatriation of the Netherlands' or by the event of Spain NOT receiving Holland (since the main cause of the defeat of the Tercios was its incredible attrition in the netherlands).
- Capital moving: The initial capital of Spain should be Toledo (it has been moved there in the Viva España event, in Castille or Aragon) and then moved to Madrid by a new event during Felipe II "The building of El Escorial".

* Spanish Succession war in 1700-1714. As discussed in this thread, there should be more events regarding the historical (Bourbon) choice and its consequences about Gibraltar, and the alternate (Habsburg) fantasy choice and its consequences for Catalonia. This has been discussed in this thread so far.

Line so far could be

1) Bourbon Line

- Spain chooses the Bourbons
- Events are triggered in the other countries. If England chooses to fight, they should add as core the Gibraltar province.
- If England manages to get the Rock they can keep it and change its culture to anglosaxon (Historical) or give it back to Spain.
- Spain in turn has the chance to yield the control of Gibraltar to England or decide to keep on fighting for it.
- If Spain regains control of the Rock, they will turn it back to Iberic culture.
- If England loses (or has not ever had in first place) control of Gibraltar from 1770, they lose their window of opportunity and lose the reclamation on Gibraltar.

2) Habsburg line

- Spain chooses the Habsburgs.
- Events are triggered in the other countries. If France chooses to fight, they should add as core the Gerona&Catalonia provinces.
- If France manages to get any of Catalonia's provinces they can grant them independence (lose the core and get them as vassals), keep them or give them back to Spain.
- Spain will not have the option to renounce to them, as will gibraltar.
- If by 1770 France does not have any of this provinces, they lose the reclamation on them.


* The conquest of the Aztecs. This still has to be developed. They should be optional, as the Inca events. I am paying a close look at the aztec EEP events, but I should review my bibliography first (if I can find it!)

* Father Bartolome de las Casas mission. This friar nearly convinced the Spanish kings Carlos I and Felipe II of giving the colonization effort a radical change, in regards of the native mistreatment. There should be an event depicting this, which will affect deeply Spanish colonization.

* Line of events regarding the Treaty of the Pyrinees, in which Spain and France would redistribute the claims on the provinces sorrounding the pyrinees, France giving up Navarra and Catalonia's provinces, Spain giving up Pau and Rouseillon.

A.4 Artificial Intelligence

I still have to test how the previous changes will affect the rest, before making observations for the AI.

B) Castilla

B.1 Terrain Values and Initial Settings

* I find a bit strange that Cantabria's trade product is Naval Supplies, while Galicia's is Iron. I would in fact switch both values. As Galicia has been used traditionally as Naval supply zone and the zone covered by 'Cantabria' is famous for its mines.

* The initial capital of Castille should be in the province of "Leon" as the most usual place used as Capital was Valladolid, which is in that province.

* Addition of a port in the Cantabria province, and change of name of the city in it to Oviedo, or other (Gijón), more repressentative of the Spanish region named Cantabria.

B.2 Leaders & Monarchs

* Carlos I should NOT govern Castille from 1506 (I think he was 6 years old at that point). He should govern from 1516/17. The monarch from the early death of Felipe I to the start of the reign of Carlos I (that should probably be as Spain) should be Cardinal Cisneros.

Added here the new Castillian Monarchs file (detected BUG in the file... one ID is duplicated!) .

* The Spanish Castillian origined leaders should go to the Castille leaders file.

* The Spain formation event should first move the capital to Toledo.

B.3 Events

* Alvaro de Luna should start being the 'valid' of the king (prime minister) from the same moment he appears as a leader. There should be no option in this.
* The civil war should hit Castille harder. Three revolts are not enough... the civil war lasted like 5 years... it was not a casual revolt. Even when a player could take profit of this, the revolts should be concentrated and localized.
*There should be an event for the judgement and execution of Alvaro de Luna. Historically, Juan II ceded to the pressures of the nobility to execute his favourite... but it could have been otherwide.
* The succession war between Isabel and Juana (the sister and the daughter of Enrique IV). The problem with this is that if Isabel does not reach the throne, or marry Fernando of Aragon, the consequences are so far reaching that I would only qualify as an only one option civil war, in the lines of Alvaro de Luna's civil war. Juana should have been the queen, but the pro-Isabelline party labelled her as illigitimate (and Enrique passed to the story as 'El Impotente'... I think this needs no translation).

But the options, if it is desired should be...

* The succession war. Options would be Isabel (historical) and Juana (named 'La Beltraneja' by the followers of Isabel, as she was said to be the real daughter of the Queen and Beltrán, the royal steward... who sided with Isabel, by the way).
* The marriage of Isabel. The candidates would be Aragon (Fernando), Portugal and France.

Going for any non historical option here would have far-reaching consequences, as it would mean there would be no Iberic Wedding... and no Spain. So we would enter the realm of hardcore historical fantasy.

B.4 Artificial Intelligence

* The two first Monarchs of Castille are TOO agressive with Granada. I usually see Granada annexed by 1435... They should try to reduce it to a province and Vassalice it, rather than outright conquer it. Only with the coming of Queen Isabel to the throne, the AI should go to conquer Granada. The future events of Granada in E.3 would be able to break this possible vassallage. We must remember Granada lasted until 1492.

Apart from that, with the removal of the CB shields of Castille on Aragon (already done), it should work fin.

C) Aragon

C.1 Terrain Values and Initial Settings

* Rousellion initial culture should be Iberic, not French. This can be changed later with French occupation or with the Spanish Treaty of the Pyrinees line of events.

C.2 Leaders & Monarchs

* Until Spain's formation it is fine. From there, I would suggest putting the aragonese origined spanish leaders in the aragon leaders file. There is some information about this in a Spanish Forum thread, that I will try to research.

C.3 Events

* There are some major events in Aragon (like the conflict of 'La Busca' and 'La Biga') that should be portraited. As before, I have to research this.

* The formation of Spain should happen before in the case Aragon fulfils the requirements, as when Isabel I would die, king Fernando would try to secure his hold in Castille (he indeed tried this, but Castille, being more powerful historically, refused and first had Felipe I, and after that the regency of Cardinal Cisneros, instead). Or perhaps of simplicity, still consider the union with Carlos I, after Fernando's death, and consider Castille vassalized and under the regency of Cardinal Cisneros (thus unifying monarchs and dates in both theories, and avoiding a mess)

*A thing has occurred to me, about a Spain formed by a dominant Aragon (instead of Castille) is that the new trade center should not be formed in the province of Andalucia, in the city of Sevilla, but in the Aragonese crown, in the docks of Barcelona. That way it would be oriented to both the Atlantic trade AND the mediterranean trade. Valencia could be considered a good option. The event would be same, with the same effects, but just a change of the CoT location. And I feel it would give a lot more flavour.

* As it will be pointed at one point in the future in Navarra's events, Aragon should get a claim in the province of Navarra, and perhaps inherit it.

C.4 Artificial Intelligence

* Should be a touch more agressive in the mediterrenean, from my point of view. Specially Italy wise.

About D) Navarra and E) Granada... I know very few... any help will be very appreciated, and would appreciate hints. This are my frist ideas. About Navarra, I think of Spain gaining at some point CB shield on its province. About Granada, they should at some point have their inner succession war, that should provoke the breaking of any possible vassallage by Spain

D) Navarra

D.1 Terrain Values and Initial Settings

Navarra should have Basque and French culture and start as a vassal of France; it was ruled by the counts of Evreux, a side branch of the French crown. It could have shields on Cantabria and Gascogne since these were old basque territories.
If there are tags left, Foix should become an independent French vassal owning Béarn (but not ally; the counts of Foix were "ni anglais, ni français") that is merged with Navarra in 1481.
I don't know if iron is really accurate as good for Navarra; possibly naval supplies (much of the area is covered with forests) or simply wheat would be better. Béarn, being situated in the Pyrenees, should really be a mountain province.

D.2 Leaders & Monarchs

Monarchs for Foix:

1412-1436 Jean I, MIL 7 ADM 6 DIP 6
1436-1472 Gaston IV, MIL 7 DIP 7 ADM 6
1472-January 29 1483 François Febus
1483-January 1484 Catherine
1484-1516 Jean D'Albret; MIL 2 ADM 3 DIP 5 (he was a complete disaster)
1516-February 12th 1517 Catherine
1517-1555 Henri II
1555-June 1572 Jeanne D'Albret
1572-1610 Henri III
Fantasy monarchs (identical to the Kings of France):
1610-1643 Louis I (Louis XIII of France)
1643-1715 Louis II (Louis XIV of France)
1715-1774 Louis III (Louis XV of France)
1774-1814 Louis IV (Louis XVI of France)
1814-1853 Louis V (Louis XVII of France)

Navarra monarchs:

can stay as they are until 1479, but the names should be changed to French versions (Basque would be even better, though I doubt that there is a basque equivalent for Carlos or Juan). If it is united with Foix, it should get the same monarchs as Foix. Carlos de Viana should be a dormant monarch (lasting from 1441-1461).

Leader for Foix:

1436-1472 Gaston IV de Foix; he supported the french king in the final stage of the Hundred Years War and was exceptionally successful especially in sieges (e.g. he took Bordeaux in 1453) and commanded the joint French army in the victory of Castillon, defeating and killing Talbot and his son. Hence he should have a siege bonus and a decent shock value (4 to match Talbot would be justified imo).

Henri II could also be a leader for Foix and Navarra without exceptional skills (but with monarch rank) since he participated in several campaigns
If Navarra chooses to lead the Huguenots, it should get all current FPR leaders.


D.3 Events

I will elaborate more on these and eventually try to script them.

1425: Juan of Aragon inherits Navarra; Navarra gets an alliance and +100 relations with Aragon, looses French and gets Catalan or Iberian country culture
1436: Foix acquires the County of Bigorre and the Lordships of Marquefave, Villemur and Auterive; increases taxvalue, manpower and population in Béarn
1441: Death of Blanche of Navarra; Carlos de Viana, the son of Juan and Blanche, is appointed co-ruler (or not if option B is chosen)
this leads to another event "Conflict between Juan and Carlos" around 1450; increasing revoltrisk and lowering stability and letting the player choose between Juan and Carlos
1455: Treaty of Barcelona; Juan dispossesses Carlos and makes Gaston de Foix his successor; lowered stability, revoltrisk, RM and improved relations with Foix; choosing B, letting Carlos remain heir to the throne, would cause Aragon to inherit Navarra in 1479
1458: Juan succeeds to the Throne of Aragon; Navarra becomes a vassal of Aragon
February 12th 1479: The counts of Foix and vicounts of Béarn become Kings of Navarra; Foix inherits Navarra
1479: Conflict between the houses of Beaumont and Gramont in Foix and Béarn; increased revoltrisk and lower stability
November 3rd 1481: François-Febus is crowned King of Navarra; Foix becomes Navarra and gets Basque culture
1484: Catherine marries Jean D'Albret; the possessions of Albret are united with Navarra. Either at this point or in 1527 when the Armagnac territories are incorporated, Navarra should get Gascogne (by inheriting the independent country that owns it)
1494: Jean de Foix, the vicount of Narbonne, questions Catherine's right on Navarra and fights her; dramatically increased revoltrisk for three years
1512: Ferdinand of Aragon who has inherited the claim on Navarra through his wife, Germaine de Foix-Narbonne, claims and invades Navarra; Aragon gets a shield on Navarra; Navarra chooses whether to simply give up everything south of the Pyrenees, which moves the capital to Béarn and secedes Navarra to Aragon, or to fight on

After this, I would like to model Navarra's rise to a major force in the French south that made it the leader and protector of the Huguenots; it could completely replace the obscure Huguenot country in EU2 (freeing the FPR tag). However, to do this, France needs to be changed so that there are more independent vassal states in the south of which at least some remain independent until the late 16th century. For the proposed Navarra events, I would need Armagnac (in Gascogne) and Bourbon.

1527: Henri II marries Marguerite D'Angouleme and thereby gets the Armagnac possessions; this should make Navarra inherit the independent country of Armagnac (in Gascogne)
1548: Jeanne D'Albret marries Antoine de Bourbon-Vendome; Navarra inherits Bourbon
1571: Jeanne D'Albret introduces Calvinism as state religion and openly supports the Huguenots
1589: Henri de Navarre becomes King of France; Navarra is vassalised to France
1593: Henri IV accepts Catholicism; Navarra converts
1620: Béarn and Navarra are united with the French crown; France inherits Navarra and gets a shield on Béarn and Navarra


D.4 Artificial Intelligence

Navarra and Foix can have the same ai; it should have an aggression value of about 30 and have SPA, ENG, FRA and FUC on its combat list.

E) Granada

E.1 Terrain Values and Initial Settings

* Would the Alhambra be considered as an initial Arts Academy in the province of Granada?

E.2 Leaders & Monarchs

* I still have to review the files... but I don't think the changes of monarch (a pair of them should be or not in charge by events) are implemented (anyway Granada does not last that much...)

E.3 Events

* The fighting with the ibn-sarray, a family that tried to play kingmakers and got the consequences of it:

- In 1419 they succesfully exiled of the throne king Muhammed VIII to put their puppet Mohammad IX.
- In 1427 Muhammad VIII managed to get back, although he pardoned them oficially. But with help from Tunis and specially Castille, Muhammad IX went back in 1429.
- In 1431 Castille put Yusuf IV in the throne, since Muhammad proved to be roguish... This should be the moment, I feel, that Granada should be vassal of Castille.
- In 1441, Muhammad IX, the king exiled by the Castillian intervention, asked for help to the mamluks. I think historically they just sent money to him. I still have to see if he managed to get back the throne...
- At last in 1460, the Ibn-sarray were invited to a supper by the king and assesinated. This was the end of the inner struggle between the Ibn-sarray and the "officialist" faction.
- In 1481, Muley al-Hassan, the new king, refused to pay the tribute to Castille (breaking vassallage), thus marking the new castillian intention of finally conquering Granada. This was the beggining of the end.

All these events should be marked by general anarchy and lack of stability. The last years of Granada were not very happy...

E.4 Artificial Intelligence

* As Mentioned, Granada never lasts for long... Historically there was a window of oportunity for total conquest until around 1431. Then the castillian kings were content to keep them as vassal, until 50 years later the kings of Granada refused to pay tribute and homage to Castille.
* Granada was spiritually, physically and diplomatically isolated from northern Africa. Making alliances should be quite difficult for them (although I think it already works like that in the AGC).

[stnylan]

There is a good book in my local library about Granada. I will go and dig it out, and refresh my memory (it has been a few years since I read it).

My only suggestion at this time would be that Granada start with an Arts Academy, to represent the cultural centre that was the Alhambra palace (in may ways the stereotypical Muslim palace). There should then be an event that when Granada is annexed the Arts Academy should disappear.

[Lucius Sulla]

I think the Alhambra should not qualify as art academy... after all an art academy repressents a continous and dynamic production of artistic effort... which Granada did not have. Just a very beautiful castle and gardens.

I think there is some info about the Granada succession war in the Spanish forum, but I would thank any help you can give... like perhaps a cronology.

[stnylan]

Well, that was precisely what the Alhambra was! It attracted many poets and painters to its walls, in a way not dissimilar to the Medici in Florence in later years. The walls might be the only thing left, but they were not built in a vacuum.

Incidentally this site is filled with kinglists and may or may not prove useful in this or other endeavors.

[Lucius Sulla]

Originally posted by stnylan
Well, that was precisely what the Alhambra was! It attracted many poets and painters to its walls, in a way not dissimilar to the Medici in Florence in later years. The walls might be the only thing left, but they were not built in a vacuum.

Well, can you name any of those poets or painters? I think comparing it to the renaissance process is a bit exagerated...

But still it could be a good idea giving the extra income from it to poor Granada... One of my concerns is that Granada never ever lasts til 1492. The Gibraltar province should fall soon, yes... but the general (not mandatory) idea is that Granada should fall later (although it has the tendency to reappear when AI Spain does not manage well the expulsion events' rebellions). So it could be an idea to discuss... I will put the idea up, for discussion.

[Garbon]

I'll see if I can dig you up some sites on Granada. I researched all this stuff a few months back and I know I have a list of sites lying around somewhere.

[Lucius Sulla]

Continuing the Succession war thread, I was thinking of the cession of the Italian and Dutch cession to Austria...

Italy, in its incredibly complicated political climate, should still remain open, and the possible Spanish loses and gains here should restrict to warfare, as in fact there were still gains and loses of italian territory for historical Bourbon Spain.

But I have changed my mind about the Spanish Netherlands and Flanders.

Every player who has tried to keep the Netherlands knows that it is (as it was historically) an open sink of money and resources, if you want to keep them. In the beggining of the XVIII century, Spain was frankly tired of keeping even the souther provinces... So, I would say that with ANY option (Bourbon and Habsburg) if Spain has not managed to get the netherlands 'repatriation' event, they should cede their possesions to Austria.

Why to Austria in any case?

Well, if they choose the Bourbon line, Spain will cede, pressed by France, their possesions in Flanders to Austria, as happened historically.

But if they have chosen the Habsburg fantasy type option, the new monarch, considering Spain a vassal kingdom (in fact Austria makes Spain a vassal) would consider more natural to switch control of the netherlands to Austria, since it really felt more natural and Spain's government was frankly fed up with the Dutch. It makes no sense to have revolts in the dutch provinces from 1714...

Holland should be agressive trying to get this southern provinces... but I consider this apart.

So, if Spain has not triggered the repatriation of the netherlands, winning the Dutch revolt, they should cede their dutch possesions to Austria.

Even if there is no actual really played succession war, I frankly think that this would have been used to stabilize the situation, since the dutch situation was just too 'hot' in Spanish hands.

I will still not put this up, as an update until I hear what the people may think about it

[Lucius Sulla]

Thanks Garbon

Looking at the EEP link, and continuing with the idea that Castille should not take Granada that early, I think that Castille should not start with CB shield in Granada but should indeed start with CB shield in Gibraltar.

The CB Shield in Granada should perhaps be won when Granada would refuse the keep on paying the tribute to Castille...

[Lucius Sulla]

The Spanish succession war was not only a fight among several European countries. It also provoked an inner civil conflict, with people of Spain fighting in different sides. But in the game, the sucession can pass without any trouble at all! (In fact choosing Bourbon raises stability by 2... the civil war was only fantasy, then?)

How do you feel about adding revolts and revoltrisk to both of the choices? (Bourbon / Habsburgs)

In the case of the Bourbon, the revolts could be even set to historical locations (Catalonia, Gerona, Aragon, Valencia, Navarra comes to mind, but this would need to be researched).

[Arilou]

The problem with the Tercios events etc. etc. is that it wasn't just a matter of reorganization: It was rather the LACK of reorganization: WHat was considered really offensive in the 15th and 16th centuries became defensive and siege-oriented in the 17th century. (Note also that the Dutch wars were mostly siege-insensive, the Netherlands had more fortresses per square-inch than any other reion in Europe, this of course, made the spanish army siege-oriented, just like the lack of such fortresses in the East made the swedish army manuever-oriented)

[Lucius Sulla]

I still think the new organization of the Tercios respond to the aggressive use of infantry, developing intelligent use of the new fire weapons (arquebus) and intelligent lightning type shock attacks (the 'encamisadas', action very characteristic of the tercios). So offensive bonuses would better be applied. The shock tactics of the Tercios had devastating effect, specially in the enemy cavalry, who was nearly defenseless against the new tactics.

And the problem with the Tercios, it was never mentioned to be because of the reorganization In fact the ascendancy in the XVI century was indeed cause by a very noticeable reorganization.

The causes of the decay of the quality and martial virtues of the Spanish troops was more because of the chaotic state of the Spanish finances (bankruptcies of Felipe III and IV) who undermined the supply (and pay system) to the Spanish troops, specially in the Netherlands, and the 'sense of defeat' after Rocroi and similar actions and the practical recognizement of the success of the Dutch revolt. Of course, this factors made for the lack of reorganization of the Tercios, who needed to adapt to the new times. But, without morale and will and specially without money, it is hard to develop such enterprise.

I personally think the siege capabilities of the Spanish troops are better repressented by the main Spanish leaders of the time of the Dutch revolt: Alessandro Farnesse, Ambrogio Spinola and Fernando de Austria. I really can't see the Spanish troops of the time with 'defensive doctrine', but rather the opposite. One of the causes of the defeat in the last battles was the superiority of the enemy modern artillery.

[Sheridan]

Just an FYI - the game will accept event ID numbers in the 8-digit range, so you can easily set up a series of events like this and be able to test them in-game without any problems.

You can then renumber by means of a quick find-and-replace later. (I've used 40,000,000 for this myself; then you can simply find and replace the 400000xx with 292xx or whatever number sequence the AGC gives you later on.)

The only negative effect this will have is when the person(s) doing the testing tries to reload a pre-renumbering savegame post-renumbering, in which the events should re-fire.

[Lucius Sulla]

Oh well, I am first going to perform an off-hands BetaTest with the new leaders, then I will add the Spanish army events (yet another Betatest) and then the Spanish Succesion war events (and yet another). As I have nearly unlimited webspace, I will try to post the screenshots...

The main events of the pre-Spain powers should be easier to test, since they should last only a century.

[alvaro]

Terribly done in the game IMHO. I think that we are forgetting here the leitmotif of the unification of the 2 realms, tanto monta monta tanto, meaning that both realms were going to be even with no differences. Quite different from the creation from the vassalisation of Aragon.
The problem can be that there is no especial option for this kind of "annexation".
The point where I think Spain should be created is at the death of Isabel when Fernando took the power of the (still) 2 crowns.

Any ideas on this?

[alvaro]

I think the objectives of Granada should tend to achieve the success of the Califato (Cordoba), this is, Conquer the peninsula, and become West Mediterranean power with a great fleet, with chances to of conquering West Africa (Sahel-Songhai) following the trade routes tranporting the african gold and slaves, and territories in America but no colonial empire. No CoT in Andalusia.

[Lucius Sulla]

Fernando of Aragón indeed historically tried to seize the power in Castille, after the death of his wife, Isabel. But he failed. First, with Felipe I, with whom he had multiple problems. And after Felipe's early death, the Castillians even refused further to his advances, preferring the regency of Cardinal Cisneros.

So... Spain should be formed only after the death of Fernando, with the coming to Spain of Carlos (Karl V). If forming it with Castille, with a long regency from Cisneros. If forming it with Aragon, directly.

I think the vassallage of Aragon in Castille was in the spirit that Aragon should not ally with any other but Castille (who will be probably alliance leader) and considering the fact that the Aragon crown finally submitted to the Castillian one. Of course, an aragonese player could decide otherwise, but historically, I think this reflects the situation better than any other option.

[vilkouak]

I want to interrupt about the spanish leaders case. It seems to me that some of them will be missed cause only replacements are considered. There is a lot of free ids to make many new leaders for Spain. They not necessary must be all monsters like 4/4/4 or higher but only slightly better like 3/2/2 for example. I agree with Peter Ebessen that really great leader should be a long-awaited one but more smaller leaders give more fun and flexibility to the game.

Second thing is new id range. Like Korath suggested, it is better to assign completely new ids than using the old one. There was some unexpected problem after new polish leader list was adapted and then it was found that in swedish event that two of them can be slept. But after changes in ids, swedish event slept completely other leader that it was planned at first. There is always a chance that something like this will happen again, so much better policy is to use new id range. This allows to add as many new leaders as needed, besides .

Creation of Spain event is one of the most important in the game. It not only greatly affects game balance (in case that Spain in not formed) but blockades ToT too. There is only a reminder - I believe that Spaniards are the best equipped people to deal with that .

[Lucius Sulla]

The truth is that some Spanish militar leaders were true monsters, who devoured whole armies with less troops with a strange easiness.

Let me reconsider anyway...

Blas de Lezo should stay that way. He was completely unbeatable, a true legend. And the only reason I have restricted him to 4/4/4 is that he did not win a Huge battle, but several big and small ones, even with incredible odds against, and with awesome efficiency. Mr. Ebbesen mentioned the best swedish admiral had that stats, and I don't think Blas was a worse admiral (probably a better one).

The stats of Pescara and of the Duque de Feria, could be lowered. Specially those of Duque de Feria. Although he did great things, and won a lot of important battles, he still could be consider a bit less effective. From 4/4/4 to 3/3/3 or something in between, I should read more his battles, and the type of tactics he employed, he still was, with Spinola, the general who performed the 'annus mirabilis' of the Spanish Army in the XVII century, and that is a huge factor.

Luis Fajardo successes and clear ressults really make him to desserve at least a 3/3/3 at least. Specially since his victories are very well documented.

Gravina's stats are just made in comparison with Villeneuve's... all analysts (French, Spanish, English) coincide in the fact that he was FAR better than this french admiral.

I think La Romana's stats describe well, as a quite good cavalry commander.

About the changes in El Gran Capitan, Alvaro de Bazan and Farnesse... we are not talking about generals or admirals. We are talkinga about true legends of the history of warfare, and of the best militars of their time, without a shadow of doubt.

Their stats should be, thus, in the range of the legends.

[stnylan]

Definitely remove the CB from Granada. I am tempted also to say remove the CB from Gibralter, and give Castile a temp CB, so as not to give them a revolt-free ride (after all, the inhabitants of Gibralter etc were not overly impressed with their new rulers). Comments?

As for the Succession Italian possessions, I think leaving these to warfare is the best way. It helps reflect the messy nature of Italian politics, IMO.

I agree that make the Southern Netherlands switch event-driven. I would prefer some other options for Spain/France/Netherlands to represent possible outcomes. Perhaps working something like this:

Bourbon succession
a - transfer to Austria
b - independence? (are there any of the minors still eligible at that time)
c - transfer to Netherlands

Hapsburg (fantasy) succession
a - transfer to France (a consolation)
b - indepedence?
c - transfer to Austria
d - transfer to Netherlands

Alternatively instead of independence option have them be divided between France and Netherlands as is most appropriate. Given how much effort France spent over the years trying to seize these provinces, I do not think this is unreasonable from a historical perspective. In any event, feel free to tear apart or not as your fancy takes you.

For the earlier leaders I am in full agreement with Lucius. For 50 years Spain dominated military warfare, through its leaders.

PS My book on Trafalger agrees that Gravina was at least as good as Villeneueve, though he never really attained his full potential because of the relative quality of Spanish naval crews and cannon relative to UK crews and cannon.

[Lucius Sulla]

I must say I was very surprised to find that in the XVII and XVIII centuries Spain had a very good naval officer tradition, since I had the modern image (specially for the 'Invincible Armada' affair) that Spanish Navy was not what we could call a good one.

So, when researching about leaders, to verify, correct and add, I browsed the Spanish threads and researched to verify if what was told was true. And to my astonishment I found out that the navy in those years was quite good. But, reading some essays from some collections and history books I clearly saw what was the problem, as I have mentioned before. The leaders were good... the crews were not. And the ships were slighltly outdated, specially when compared to the Dutch and English fleet. And still, the admirals I mention in the leader files, managed to take some ashtonishing victories against these clearly naval powers. Thus, I feel the inclusion of these historical leaders, with their stats, are quite more than accurate and correct... although I understand the people are a bit surprised and reluctant when they first see them.