Dev Diary #93 - Venetian Guile

[Tavald]

Greece losing a bit part of the land.
Andalusia destroyable by decision.
England now the biggest kingdom?

 

[LeSingeAffame]

Greece losing a bit part of the land.
Andalusia destroyable by decision.
England now the biggest kingdom?

France is rather big too

 

[TheDungen]

Greece losing a bit part of the land.
Andalusia destroyable by decision.
England now the biggest kingdom?

Well England and Sweden are two huge kingdoms you can't cut down to size atleast not in the 1066+ start dates because they have been unitary kingdoms for like forever. That said Perhaps England should have fairly few holdings like Sweden does.

 

[wingren013]

Well England and Sweden are two huge kingdoms you can't cut down to size atleast not in the 1066+ start dates because they have been unitary kingdoms for like forever. That said Perhaps England should have fairly few holdings like Sweden does.

England should be a lot weaker than it is in game. In real life England wasn't very powerful until after CK2s end date. It certainly couldn't match medieval powerhouses like France. But there are lots of areas that have more holdings than they should for gameplay reasons, Ireland, Arabia, Northern Germany, etc...

 

[TheDungen]

England should be a lot weaker than it is in game. In real life England wasn't very powerful until after CK2s end date. It certainly couldn't match medieval powerhouses like France. But there are lots of areas that have more holdings than they should for gameplay reasons, Ireland, Arabia, Northern Germany, etc...

Actually England was a backwater until way after the ck2 era. Francis Bacon is the one who starts to turn it around or maybe Elizabeth I (Or the prolonged period of relative peace under Elizabeth I and James I, in a time when the rest of Europe was in flames) In the ck2 end it's the hundred years war and the English kings were more powerful as Dukes in France than as kings in England.

The problems isn't really these areas being over represented but the more populous one being under represented.

 

[Kougoes]

So if the Byzantine Empire is retaken by a crusade and the Latin Empire is formed, wouldn't it be entirely awesome if the schism could be mended by a Catholic? If succesful this would convert all Orthodox characters into Catholic ones, just like the Byzantine mending of the schism but vice versa.

I've always liked the idea of a Latin mending of the schism, since CK2 revolves a lot around the western European world and therefore Catholics.

Besides, mending the schism from a catholic point of view would make Catholism a formidable bastion against the new pagan reformation mechanics.

 

[Thrake]

Looking forward Iberian Ire DD.

 

[Tavald]

Well England and Sweden are two huge kingdoms you can't cut down to size atleast not in the 1066+ start dates because they have been unitary kingdoms for like forever. That said Perhaps England should have fairly few holdings like Sweden does.

And I forgot germany after 1066.
Could England be 2 or 3 kingdoms that can be united/created by decision like the kingdom of leon?

 

[TheDungen]

And I forgot germany after 1066.
Could England be 2 or 3 kingdoms that can be united/created by decision like the kingdom of leon?

But Germany has no buiness being a united kingdom after the HRE is founded. Meanwhile England really do. Sure englad could be broken up but it's not really correct after 1066.

 

[Kumicho]

Just use these buttons in menu. You can start in any day in years 1066-1366.

Unless they're scripted events, PDX hasn't put in wars at any of the dates. So you can pick a date where the 1st Crusade hasn't started yet, and the next day the Crusade is over and the Kingdom of Jerusalem is already formed.

I want to know if there is going to be a new date where the scripted war has already started, like in 1066 where William has already declared war on England, or in 867 where there are the wars of the sons of Ragnar, or the Maygars against Bulgaria, etc.

 

[xXConquerorXx]

And I forgot germany after 1066.
Could England be 2 or 3 kingdoms that can be united/created by decision like the kingdom of leon?

England proper in the south and Northumbria/Cumbria in the north (Including Galloway and Lothian)?

 

[James Hale]

My question is: will these new provinces mean new characters and title history, or is it purely a geographical change?

 

[Urzhail64]

Actually England was a backwater until way after the ck2 era. Francis Bacon is the one who starts to turn it around or maybe Elizabeth I (Or the prolonged period of relative peace under Elizabeth I and James I, in a time when the rest of Europe was in flames) In the ck2 end it's the hundred years war and the English kings were more powerful as Dukes in France than as kings in England.

The problems isn't really these areas being over represented but the more populous one being under represented.

I have to disagree. Edward I was an internationally respected king, even being called in to moderate the dispute over the crown of Scotland (which he took advantage of) and tried to mediate the conflict between the Papacy, Sicily and Aragon. And there's the Hundred Years War which estabalished England as a military power. And I wouldn't call the Angevin Empire under Henry II a "backwater" considering that Henry II held all of England and TWO THIRDS of France. (Normandy, Anjou, and the Aquitane in it's entirety) In fact I'd call France the backwater until Phillip Augustus chipped away at the Angevin Empire starting with John Lackland.

France was very lucky to have Phillip Augustus appear as he did..any lesser king would have been overwhelmed by the likes of Henry II and Richard the Lion-Heart.

 

[wingren013]

And I wouldn't call the Angevin Empire under Henry II a "backwater" considering that Henry II held all of England and TWO THIRDS of France. (Normandy, Anjou, and the Aquitane in it's entirety) In fact I'd call France the backwater until Phillip Augustus chipped away at the Angevin Empire starting with John Lackland.

England was a poor muddy little backwater. France was a medieval superpower with a massive population and incredible amounts of wealth thanks to its farmland.

Also the English kings controlling a bunch of France has more to do with them comong from France than England being powerful. The Hundred Years war wasn't between England and France. It was a French civil war where one of the sides included the English king and his private army.

But as said above the problem isn't with poor and underpopulated areas being overrepsented (except in a few cases like Ireland and Arabia) its the fact that the game considers a castle controlling a mountainy patch of land in Norway the same as one in Italy controlling rich farmland and market towns in terms of income and levies.

 

[Byzantium2000]

So if the Byzantine Empire is retaken by a crusade and the Latin Empire is formed, wouldn't it be entirely awesome if the schism could be mended by a Catholic? If succesful this would convert all Orthodox characters into Catholic ones, just like the Byzantine mending of the schism but vice versa.

I've always liked the idea of a Latin mending of the schism, since CK2 revolves a lot around the western European world and therefore Catholics.

Besides, mending the schism from a catholic point of view would make Catholism a formidable bastion against the new pagan reformation mechanics.

Yeah but that’s way too easy, say a fourth crusade type event hits 1333 Byzantium bam day one schism over, Byzantium destroyed. Why not just give Catholics the option to reunite it the way orthodoxs do. The fall of papal Rome isn’t enough to instantly convert the Catholics in England why would the fall of Byzantium make the Russians convert.

 

[TheDungen]

I have to disagree. Edward I was an internationally respected king, even being called in to moderate the dispute over the crown of Scotland (which he took advantage of) and tried to mediate the conflict between the Papacy, Sicily and Aragon. And there's the Hundred Years War which estabalished England as a military power. And I wouldn't call the Angevin Empire under Henry II a "backwater" considering that Henry II held all of England and TWO THIRDS of France. (Normandy, Anjou, and the Aquitane in it's entirety) In fact I'd call France the backwater until Phillip Augustus chipped away at the Angevin Empire starting with John Lackland.

France was very lucky to have Phillip Augustus appear as he did..any lesser king would have been overwhelmed by the likes of Henry II and Richard the Lion-Heart.

The Angevin empire was an empire because it held land in France, England was a backwater, Scotland was an even bigger backwater, heck Scotland was barely that, more like a frontier with a barely existing monarchy. The hundred years war was a civil war in France where one of the participants happened to be king of a small rain-soaked island no one cared about in addition to being a contender for the french throne. Notice that when the support in France for the English kings start to wane and the french get their act together and start acting like a unified kingdom again the British are expelled from french soil with startling speed.

 

[Urzhail64]

England was a poor muddy little backwater. France was a medieval superpower with a massive population and incredible amounts of wealth thanks to its farmland.

Also the English kings controlling a bunch of France has more to do with them comong from France than England being powerful. The Hundred Years war wasn't between England and France. It was a French civil war where one of the sides included the English king and his private army.

But as said above the problem isn't with poor and underpopulated areas being overrepsented (except in a few cases like Ireland and Arabia) its the fact that the game considers a castle controlling a mountainy patch of land in Norway the same as one in Italy controlling rich farmland and market towns in terms of income and levies.

The Angevin empire was an empire because it held land in France, England was a backwater, Scotland was an even bigger backwater, heck Scotland was barely that, more like a frontier with a barely existing monarchy. The hundred years war was a civil war in France where one of the participants happened to be king of a small rain-soaked island no one cared about in addition to being a contender for the french throne. Notice that when the support in France for the English kings start to wane and the french get their act together and start acting like a unified kingdom again the British are expelled from french soil with startling speed.

The Armagnac-Burgundian civil war started in 1407 as a result of the murder of Louis of Orleans that's roughly 70 years after the traditional 1337 start of the Hundred Years War. For all their wealth and farmland, France's royal authority was remarkably weak and allowed powerful dukes to carry out private wars as the Armagnacs and Burgundians did. By the same token the weak royal authority also meant that the French king wasn't able to effectively collect taxes to foot the cost of the war until the emergence Charles V and Charles VII Charles VII would be the one responsible for bringing back Burgundy into the fold and eventually crush their ducal power.

The English had a distinct advantage in that their royal authority was much stronger in England than it was for the French King did in France. Plus the emergence of the longbow (which Edward I learned from painful experience in his Welsh wars) gave the English military superiority over the French knights until the emergence of cannon. And contrary to your statement, the English wasn't evicted with startling speed...the fact that England managed to hang on after the death of Henry V in 1422 until 1453 largely due to the efforts of the Duke of Bedford along with a collapse of royal authority in England that would eventually lead to the Wars of the Roses (it's those *darn* "overmighty lords" again)

I'd suggest Jonathan Sumption's seminal work on the Hundred Years War as a source..it IS the definite work on that period even though I've read Desmond, Allmand, Perroy and a few other's treatments of the war but it's Sumption's work that should be considered THE definite work on that subject. Perroy is pretty pro-French in it's bias while Allmand is quite pro-English. A warning...Sumption's work is five volumes long!

 

[TheDungen]

The Armagnac-Burgundian civil war started in 1407 as a result of the murder of Louis of Orleans that's roughly 70 years after the traditional 1337 start of the Hundred Years War. For all their wealth and farmland, France's royal authority was remarkably weak and allowed powerful dukes to carry out private wars as the Armagnacs and Burgundians did. By the same token the weak royal authority also meant that the French king wasn't able to effectively collect taxes to foot the cost of the war until the emergence Charles V and Charles VII Charles VII would be the one responsible for bringing back Burgundy into the fold and eventually crush their ducal power.

The English had a distinct advantage in that their royal authority was much stronger in England than it was for the French King did in France. Plus the emergence of the longbow (which Edward I learned from painful experience in his Welsh wars) gave the English military superiority over the French knights until the emergence of cannon. And contrary to your statement, the English wasn't evicted with startling speed...the fact that England managed to hang on after the death of Henry V in 1422 until 1453 largely due to the efforts of the Duke of Bedford along with a collapse of royal authority in England that would eventually lead to the Wars of the Roses (it's those *darn* "overmighty lords" again)

I'd suggest Jonathan Sumption's seminal work on the Hundred Years War as a source..it IS the definite work on that period even though I've read Desmond, Allmand, Perroy and a few other's treatments of the war but it's Sumption's work that should be considered THE definite work on that subject. Perroy is pretty pro-French in it's bias while Allmand is quite pro-English. A warning...Sumption's work is five volumes long!

First of again the reason the english could do as well as they did in the hundred years war was their holdings in France not their holdings in England and also the fractured nature of their enemies. And you overestimate the impact of the longbow. Yes it was part of the victory at agincort but not the only factor. There was also the uphill charge the muddy ground and the lack of strategy on the French side. All these effect helped boost the longbow.
And it was never used to such a devestating again after that.

And it was startling speed because the english went from holding nearly all of France to holding mere slivers on the coast in a a relative short time time after having fought so many wars there for more than a century.

As other have pointed out this wasn't a war between England and France it was a French civil war. There wasn't even a claimant the French could agree on until half way though he war.
As such you can't justify England high holding numbers by their success against France because that's not where England's strength lay. It may in them being united while their enemy fractured and a lot of "their enemy" siding with them.

 

[Kumicho]

England proper in the south and Northumbria/Cumbria in the north (Including Galloway and Lothian)?

Nah, the usual way of making someone more or less powerful is to add/delete counties from the du jure kingdom. Removing 3-4 counties from England would go a long way to nerfing them.

That being said, I usually don't see England as a problem unless it goes heathen/heretic (usually in the hands of the player). They'll be able to steamroll Scotland/Ireland regardless, and they don't seem to be a threat to the continental powers. Just don't see it as that big of a deal.

 

[vertinox]

Dandalo strikes again!