YodaMaster said:
amended
katarina is Catherine.........use which ever you prefer.........
ok
-
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.
amended
katarina is Catherine.........use which ever you prefer.........
ok
Fine now and Katarina for the name of 277018 only.
Trigger "exists = PRM" to be added in 277018.
EDIT: In 261007, shouldn't we test if HAB exists? Otherwise, there is no conflict with Austria, right?
Trigger "exists = PRM" to be added in 277018.
EDIT: In 261007, shouldn't we test if HAB exists? Otherwise, there is no conflict with Austria, right?
Last edited:
Didn't read all of the thread, so I have one question:
Why is Morea a fully independent country? Shouldn't it at least be a vassal of the Byzantine Empire, if not completely belong to it?
IMO its rather strange when you play Byzantium and have Kostantinos as a general in your army and at the same time he rules Morea as a Despot, completely independent from Constantinople and later even becomes emperor. It
Also the main city wasn't Nafplion but Mystras.
Why is Morea a fully independent country? Shouldn't it at least be a vassal of the Byzantine Empire, if not completely belong to it?
IMO its rather strange when you play Byzantium and have Kostantinos as a general in your army and at the same time he rules Morea as a Despot, completely independent from Constantinople and later even becomes emperor. It
Also the main city wasn't Nafplion but Mystras.
Last edited:
We model a military alliance that represents relations between 1419 and 1443. Having a ruler of two different countries doesn't mean player have control of both countries. Despot of Morea is not the same as Byzantine Emperor and player is not the ruler of the country anyway. Maybe an event is missing in October 1443 for vassalization of Morea to Byzantine Empire but I'm not even sure it makes sense.
Name of main city must be the most accurate for all EU2 timeframe. We have no choice because we can't change the name of main cities in game.
Name of main city must be the most accurate for all EU2 timeframe. We have no choice because we can't change the name of main cities in game.
YodaMaster said:
we have already discussed this before, there should be no vassalation as konstanine who was ruler of morea , went to become ruler of byzantine in 1448 and his brother thomas took over the morea, there was no payment of any kind
strange thing is that they where allies, but they never helped each in war
Nafplion was the most important city in the morea and it was the first capital of modern greece ( for 5 years)
Mystras wa sthe capital of the despotate of morea, but was basically forgotten after morea fell to the turks, even today it has a population of less then 10000
YodaMaster said:
The Despot of Morea was a subject of the Emperor. Just look on any map of the time period. More was a "Sekundogenitur", which means that it was inherited always by the second in the line of the throne. That doesn't mean though it was an independent country. He acted rather independently since there was little central control left, but that can be said about many realms in the medieval world.
I find it strange that Konstantinos is a general in your army and at the same time ruler of Morea, and still you as a player have control over his army, but not over his realm.
Basileios I said:
There are no leaders for either BYZ or SPR in current AGCEEP release. If there were we could only add for Konstantinos as Despot of Morea (r.1428-43?) as he campaigned against Latin Duke of Athens. His tenure as Empr was largely defensive and I believe most on the Forum consented to remove him from the BYZ leaderlist.
To rep the link btwn SPR & BYZ I believe we left it at dynastic alliance.
Toio said:
But I'm talking about "reality" here. Constantinople and Morea were not two separate countries.
Basileios I said:
we have 2 versions for byzantium, 1 for humans (fantasy one) and the one to die, to be swallowed up by the TUR. I do not see why I need to have my games ruined by BYZ being too hard to be kill off by the TUR, especially when you have a fantasy version available for your use.
These things have been discussed before and this is the variation we have for the non-fantasy BYZ
Then I suggest unifying them in the Fantasy Scenario and leaving them separate in the regular Grand Campaign.
The problem of BYZ being an obstacle for Turkey could of course also be circumvented by implementing an event which transfers BYZ's capital to Morea once the Turks take Constantinople. I believe that's how it was handled in the past (in EEP AFAIK).
The problem of BYZ being an obstacle for Turkey could of course also be circumvented by implementing an event which transfers BYZ's capital to Morea once the Turks take Constantinople. I believe that's how it was handled in the past (in EEP AFAIK).
Basileios I said:
as i said , submit that morea is owned by Byzantine in the FANTASY scaenario and it will get implemented.
my version for byzantine in fantasy is far different than your fantasy version
I don't see the "need" for modification of the Fantasy Byzantium scenario included with AGCEEP. It is easy to vassalize and diplo-annex Morea with Byzantium... if Morea survives.
Better discuss this in (awaited) Triumphant Byzantium scenario discussion thread.
Better discuss this in (awaited) Triumphant Byzantium scenario discussion thread.
YodaMaster said:
But treating them as two separate countries is rather ahistorical ... that was my point all along. This should at least be fixed in the Fantasy Scenario, where Byzantium is on a rebound anyway and it doesn't matter what they do to the Turks.
I can't tell why it was decided to use Morea as a separate state since it was not the case in EEP but ended with current setup after the merge of AGC and EEP. Of course moving capital of Byzantium to Morea could do the trick but a player will never face this "problem" and I'm sure there is more possible side effects with a two provinces Byzantium than a monoprovincial one for AI.