Hello all.

Sadly we can't yet talk about the big feature of Common Sense, Subject Interaction.. As we are completely redoing the interface for it, so it has to wait until next week.

Instead, we'll talk about a major change to the Holy Roman Empire, and give you the new achievements for 1.12.

Imperial Authority and Reforms

Imperial Authority has had a significant rework in 1.12. The old system tended to advance or retreat authority in big lurches and was very open to exploits. It also did not take into account how well the Empire was doing overall, and there was little benefit for the Emperor to maintain a large number of member states.

This has been changed in 1.12, as many of the events that gave Imperial Authority have been replaced with ticking values. The monthly change to Imperial Authority is now displayed in the interface, and will depend on factors such as:
- Whether there is peace in the Empire
- Total number of member states
- The amount of HRE territory held by outside powers
- The amount of HRE territory held by heretics & heathens
- The number of electors and free cities

An Emperor who is doing a good job will see their Imperial Authority naturally grow without having to resort to methods such as annexing states when authority is at 0 only to release them again later, while an Emperor that allows outside powers and heretics to dominate the Empire will find themselves unable to pass reforms entirely.

As part of this change, we've also revised the old 'Imperial Integrity' modifier for having more than 25 princes. We felt this modifier was both too strong and too arbitrary, so it has been removed. Instead, the HRE reforms were buffed to provide more of an incentive for members to vote for reform.

Achievements

Baltic Crusader - As Teutonic Order or Livonian Order conquer all of the Russia Region and make it Catholic.
Neither Holy, Nor German - Get 7 free cities in the HRE that are not of German Culture, as Emperor
Colonial Management - Have 3 colonial governors directly appointed by you at the same time.
Voting Streak - Get through 11 Issues in a row in Parliament
An Industrial Revolution - As GBR, all in english region, with 25 development.

City of Cities - Create a City with 60 development.
One Family to Rule them All - Have your dynasty on 8 thrones at the same time.
This is My Faith - Become Protestant and get maximum amount of traits.
Bleed them dry - Have 10 different War Reparations being paid to you at the same time.
Subsidize my Love - Subsidize 3 different allies at least 50% of their monthly income without running a deficit.

Take that Habsburgs! - As Hungary, Conquer all of Austria.
The White Elephant - As Ayutthaya conquers all provinces in Indochina region
The Buddhists strike back - As Ceylon conquer all of India and convert it to Theravada.
Better than Napoleon - As France, conquer Vienna, Berlin & Moscow.
Big Blue Blob - As France, hold 100 european core provinces before 1500.

A Full House - Have 3 Vassals & 2 Marches at the Same time.
Black Jack - Maintain 21 different overseas Subjects with more than 5 provinces each, without anyone having more than 50% Liberty Desire - Trade Companies does not count.
A Decent Reserve - Gain at least 1M Manpower.
The Six Nations - Form a federation of at least 6 nations as the Iroqious.
The Bohemians - Conquer and core Dublin as Bohemia.

Komenoi Empire - Make Trebizond into an Empire.
Lucky Lucca - As Lucca, own Lucknow!
A Fine Goosestep - Form Prussia and get 125% Discipline.
Meissner Porcelain - As Saxony own all chinaware provinces.
All Your Trade are Belong to Us! - Have highest tradepower in Genoa, Venice, & English Channel, while gaining 300 income per month.

 

[blackchoas]

Well, some of the rights present during the Republic weren´t there when Napoleon came, freedom of thought and of press weren´t present for example. He reintroduced slavery too. I guess he simply let the people have the rights that would not make them able to have political power and damage his regime.

Which is why I cite specifically the Declaration of the Right of Man and of the Citizens which was made at the start of the revolution, a revolution which is widely known to have gotten more and more radical, so that yes Napoleon scaled things back from the height of the revolution but it was still incredibly progressive for the times, also seeing as almost his entire reign was one war or another is it somehow wrong that he would prevent people from destabilizing the government in a time of crisis, Lincoln during the civil war was probably worse than Napoleon on this type of thing

 

[Sigwald]

What was so moronic about the post you quoted?

I was just directly speaking to him and congratulating him about its dedication to respond. What is moronic is the general mood of this thread, Dungen is the most obvious, but to give you an exemple, take the reply from Admiral Fisker when he has to inform that Napoleon was so Hitler like he gave rights to jews :

"The net effect of his policies, as a result, significantly changed the position of the Jews in Europe, and he was widely admired by the Jews as a result. Starting in 1806, Napoleon passed a number of measures supporting the position of the Jews in the French Empire, including assembling a representative group elected by the Jewish community, the Sanhedrin. In conquered countries, he abolished laws restricting Jews to ghettos. In 1807, he made Judaism, along with Roman Catholicism and Lutheran and Calvinist Protestantism, official religions of France. Napoleon rolled back a number of reforms in 1808 (so-called décret infâme of March 17, 1808), declaring all debts with Jews annulled, reduced or postponed, which caused the Jewish community to nearly collapse. Jews were also restricted in where they could live, in hopes of assimilating them into society. These restrictions were eliminated again by 1811."
From Wiki.

You see, any positive advance on slavery or rights of the jews is not significant if it's not the anglos doing it. On the opposite, any step backwards is significant if it's another country.

 

[Zerodv]

I was just directly speaking to him and congratulating him about its dedication to respond. What is moronic is the general mood of this thread, Dungen is the most obvious, but to give you an exemple, take the reply from Admiral Fisker when he has to inform that Napoleon was so Hitler like he gave rights to jews :
You see, any positive advance on slavery or rights of the jews is not significant if it's not the anglos doing it. On the opposite, any step backwards is significant if it's another country.

You know that I could, using your level of argument, make the Nazis looks good? Just say something useful, I would like to learn something not to be stressed by people that have a strange necessity to be sarcastic and ironic when they could simply bring normal argument. Anyway how do you know that Dungen is British?

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Well this is actually saying that Jews were simply treated as potential enemy and/or political tool, anyway Napoleon and his reform aimed to remove Catholic Church influence from the country. He even used the fact that he conquered the Papal State to convince the Egyptians to back him.(actually I don´t remember where I read this but I guess someone could find the source if it exist)

Napoleon actually tried to pass himself off as being a Muslim in one speech to the Egyptians. He would grovel before anybody.

Also, as long as you all are arguing over the supposed evilness of Napoleon, my reading on the subject, while coming from a hilariously biased pro-French source, said that he was basically in a defensive position. The reactionaries kept forcing him into confrontations that also resulted in him taking control of more states in his attempts to protect France's borders.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

People here think that in europe during early modern age, kings wanted to expand like Napoleon or Hitler. This is not how it work, the map of europe was not designed by conquer, but by marriage and legalism, supported sometimes by the military action. So even if a country was weak, he was not invaded becouse after you won, you have to deal and spend tons of money in a country hostile were you are not a legal ruler. This is also the reason why when the mind changed, with Napoleon, is expansion was so easy. The early middle age was full of war ruled law, things like bellum iustum (righteous war) were important. So you needed succession wars, or fight against heretics, and other similar situations. A King prefer work on his own land, to take the effective control trying to do reforms over nobles, church and subjects, (this is not well rapresented in EU, a little better in CK) instead to conquer and spend other money to fight countries where he cannot be recognized as legal ruler.

This is one of the reasons why, a nation survived or not during the age. Conquer can be done, but is an empty effort if you cannot be recognized by locals, and we know how money were important to the kings, they were needed in their kingdoms yet, no time and no money for other countries, if they were without justification. A King of early modern age, prefer a safe rule by legitimization than a conquer spree.

In the game this off course doesn't exist, or well, is not so important like in history, you have casus belli, but after that you do what you want without too many problems.

 

[Chief of Staff]

As far as governments is concerned, British was no better than the French during the Napoleonic Wars, either. Impressment of sailors from neutral nations like the U.S. (one of the factors leading to War of 1812), breaking of the truce created by Treaty of Amiens and gathering of the coalition against France, bombardment of Copenhagen and seizure of Danish fleets, repression of their own people suspected of apparently plotting revolution (some of them actually do) in Britain, etc. Of course, some of those actions are somewhat understandable given the desperate struggles in this great war, though at the cost of liberty. Be aware that liberty isn't necessarily a same thing as freedom. They are somewhat similar but not exactly same.

Let's just say about all Great Powers of Europe has their negative side in this war, for this is a great struggle to the death over who should win, the French or the coalition, pursued at cost of all kinds. Post-Napoleonic era isn't a pleasant time, either. Peterloo Massacre of 1819 in Britain, all kinds of repression across the Europe. It seem to have kind of calmed down after 1848. Britain managed to avoid its own revolution thanks to its own parliament effectively acting as a safety valve. In the long run, the English Civil War of 1640s and Glorious Revolution of 1688 created a safety valve that slowly evolved over couple centuries up to 1832 when the Great Reform Act was passed, beginning a century-long trend towards greater parliamentary representation through 1867 and later.

Anyway, the long era from 1790s up to 1848 was rather a tumultuous time on continental Europe for everyone concerned.

 

[wergy]

Take that Habsburgs! - As Hungary, Conquer all of Austria.
OMG I did that before! At least now I'll be motivated to do it again

 

[TheDungen]

People here think that in europe during early modern age, kings wanted to expand like Napoleon or Hitler. This is not how it work, the map of europe was not designed by conquer, but by marriage and legalism, supported sometimes by the military action. So even if a country was weak, he was not invaded becouse after you won, you have to deal and spend tons of money in a country hostile were you are not a legal ruler. This is also the reason why when the mind changed, with Napoleon, is expansion was so easy. The early middle age was full of war ruled law, things like bellum iustum (righteous war) were important. So you needed succession wars, or fight against heretics, and other similar situations. A King prefer work on his own land, to take the effective control trying to do reforms over nobles, church and subjects, (this is not well rapresented in EU, a little better in CK) instead to conquer and spend other money to fight countries where he cannot be recognized as legal ruler.

This is one of the reasons why, a nation survived or not during the age. Conquer can be done, but is an empty effort if you cannot be recognized by locals, and we know how money were important to the kings, they were needed in their kingdoms yet, no time and no money for other countries, if they were without justification. A King of early modern age, prefer a safe rule by legitimization than a conquer spree.

In the game this off course doesn't exist, or well, is not so important like in history, you have casus belli, but after that you do what you want without too many problems.

Yes and no I dont think resistance from the people was the issue, up until the rise of national romanticism people reallt didn't give two damn what language the guy they paid taxes to spoke. The issue was that most european houses very intermarried. Which emans that if you took land from another king you were really stealing from your counsin or similiar.

Which is why even though the wars was increadibly bloody very little land changed hands. This is perhaps what eu4 fails to emphasise. It's not that blobbing wasn't viable at this point in history (look at the gif earlier of the french borders, there are some pretty major conquest prior to the eu4 era (mainly turning burgundy from a independant kingdom to a french duchy, if i'm not mistaken) but the ones during are fairly minor in comparision) it was against the cultural paradigm.

Anyway, the long era from 1790s up to 1848 was rather a tumultuous time on continental Europe for everyone concerned.

The wars weren't bloodier relativly (to the populations involved) speaking than the wars that came before them. What changed was really the reasons wars were being fought. A change that eventually led us to the world wars. Now we've settled into a equilibrium that aside from being more peaceful is in a way similiar to the one of the old monarchies, where they to some extent respected their neighbours right to their territory.

 

[TheDungen]

You know that I could, using your level of argument, make the Nazis looks good? Just say something useful, I would like to learn something not to be stressed by people that have a strange necessity to be sarcastic and ironic when they could simply bring normal argument. Anyway how do you know that Dungen is British?

I'm not, neither am I german, or french for that matter. And Siegwald and the guy with the french flag are the wierd ones, it's only by discussing history that we may acheive a more nenunced view of it, I have learned much form this thread as well as several before it. I still don't subscribe to their way of seeing things ofcourse but there is some merits to some of the things they say. That which isn't blantant ad hominem ofcourse. They have a better recollection of the specific facts than I do, but I dare say a lesser understanding if the greater currents of the changing paradigms of europe (things that are way more important than borders and kings).

[

 

[TheDungen]

As for napoleon or the brittish declaring the wars that actually makes him more similiar to Hitler, remember France and Brittian declared war on hitler not the other way around. But following that declaration of war hitler was the agressor marching his soldiers into their territory. Exactly how napoleon did. Also why they both lost so many men. (2 million soldiers lost their lives in the napoleonic wars, 1.5 million of those were french, mostly during the disastrous russian campaign)
We have to self made dictators who baolishes a democratic system in order to wield absolute power. They wage war on their neighbours, using generals much more taleneted than themselves that they eventually alienate, causing that general to turn agaisnt them. They both lose laods of soldiers trying to invade russia. And they are both eventually overthrown. They both aspired for the crown of charlamagne (Napoleon even claiming it).Yeah I say there are some similiarities between the men. As long of course as you ignore the holocaust. That's actually more of a brittish idea (e.g. the boer war). The Ottomans also did it in armenia (First use of the word holocaust).

 

[illathid]

I'm not, neither am I german, or french for that matter. And Siegwald and the guy with the french flag are the wierd ones, it's only by discussing history that we may acheive a more nenunced view of it, I have learned much form this thread as well as several before it. I still don't subscribe to their way of seeing things ofcourse but there is some merits to some of the things they say. That which isn't blantant ad hominem ofcourse.


I'm not american nor english. Check the banner man, I have the banner of the place I'm from as my avatar.

As for napoleon or the brittish declaring the wars that actually makes him more similiar to Hitler, remember France and Brittian declared war on hitler not the other way around. But following that declaration of war hitler was the agressor marching his soldiers into their territory. Exactly how napoleon did. Also why he lost so many men.

Part of the reason for the British declaration of war against Napolean was the french invasion of Switzerland, which sets up another parallel.

 

[apg]

Are you kidding me Napoleon is spoken of with scary amounts of respects considering he was basically hitler 0.1, there is no dictator in history that has been more romantisised than napoleon.

Megas Alexandros.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Yeah, now Alexander the Great WAS a blight on the world.

 

[Alliegorical]

Big Blue Blob - As France, hold 100 european core provinces before 1500.

 

[loup99]

As for Napoleon or the British declaring the wars that actually makes him more similar to Hitler, remember France and Brittany declared war on Hitler not the other way around. But following that declaration of war Hitler was the aggressor marching his soldiers into their territory. Exactly how Napoleon did. Also why they both lost so many men. (2 million soldiers lost their lives in the Napoleonic wars, 1.5 million of those were French, mostly during the disastrous Russian campaign)

We have to self made dictators who abolishes a democratic system in order to wield absolute power. They wage war on their neighbours, using generals much more talented than themselves that they eventually alienate, causing that general to turn against them. They both lose loads of soldiers trying to invade Russia. And they are both eventually overthrown. They both aspired for the crown of Charlemagne (Napoleon even claiming it).Yeah I say there are some similarities between the men. As long of course as you ignore the holocaust. That's actually more of a British idea (e.g. the boer war). The Ottomans also did it in Armenia (First use of the word holocaust).

Dungen, you are very confused. Adolf Hitler was an elected dictator who exploited the crisis in Germany. He had been in prison, and through democracy tried to take power after failing with coups. His only military experience was WW1. Napoleon was a primarily general and then a politician, despite everything you seem to be claiming. Hitler was the exact contrary. Napoleon belonged to a minority, while Hitler tried to crush everyone that was not the majority. Hitler was born in a foreign country, Napoleon was born in France (or at least close to being so).

While Hitler decided to take suicide and gave up, Napoleon fought until the end, and was forced to leave (and then came back). Hitler repeatedly acted aggressively and provocated war (he declared war upon Poland), Napoleon did not, in fact, he peaced out in wars. Using generals more talented than themselves is a weird statement: Napoleon was a general, and was quiet skilled, Hitler was a bad soldier and enforced his vision. The Directory was far from democratic, while the Weimar republic kind of was. Napoleon was not different from anyone else during his time-frame or his enemies, Hitler was radically different to how the allied leader led their countries during the war.

 

[Admiral Fisker]

-

They wage war on their neighbours, using generals much more taleneted than themselves that they eventually alienate, causing that general to turn agaisnt them.

Are you seriously saying that Napoleon's generals were better than the man himself? The only ones that came close were Massena, Davout and Lannes.

 

[TheDungen]

Megas Alexandros.

Alexander the Great? He was a king not a dictator. A dictator is a man who abolishes a democratic system and gives himself absolute power. Inheriting absolute power doesnt a dictator make.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

Yes and no I dont think resistance from the people was the issue, up until the rise of national romanticism people reallt didn't give two damn what language the guy they paid taxes to spoke. The issue was that most european houses very intermarried. Which emans that if you took land from another king you were really stealing from your counsin or similiar.

Which is why even though the wars was increadibly bloody very little land changed hands. This is perhaps what eu4 fails to emphasise. It's not that blobbing wasn't viable at this point in history (look at the gif earlier of the french borders, there are some pretty major conquest prior to the eu4 era (mainly turning burgundy from a independant kingdom to a french duchy, if i'm not mistaken) but the ones during are fairly minor in comparision) it was against the cultural paradigm.




The wars weren't bloodier relativly (to the populations involved) speaking than the wars that came before them. What changed was really the reasons wars were being fought. A change that eventually led us to the world wars. Now we've settled into a equilibrium that aside from being more peaceful is in a way similiar to the one of the old monarchies, where they to some extent respected their neighbours right to their territory.

Yes, we can say that resistence of the people was not a problem, the problem is when this people is moved by local nobles, all the enlightened dispotism was about limitations and control of local nobles and church. War and good administration need a payday, to do that you need to raise taxes or have bureucrats, to do that you need to deal with local nobles and their ancient liberties and privilegia. This is why we had jurist forming the absolutist ideology, to centralize more the state, but sometimes worked (but never in a perfect way) and sometimes the head of king was taken (English revolution for example.)

 

[loup99]

Alexander the Great? He was a king not a dictator. A dictator is a man who abolishes a democratic system and gives himself absolute power. Inheriting absolute power doesnt a dictator make.

Napoleon was not a dictator as you seem to conceive it, the regime before him was far from being democratic. Read up on the "Directoire" and things might clear up for you (although I do recommend you to read up on the WW2, Thirty Years War, Napoleonic Wars, WW1 on the German side, the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, the Concert of Europe and the Treaty of Vienna as well as something more general concerning the history of France throughout the EU4 timeframe in order to get a more nuanced view).

 

[TheDungen]

-

Are you seriously saying that Napoleon's generals were better than the man himself? The only ones that came close were Massena, Davout and Lannes.

Jean Baptist Bernadotte.