EU4 Dev Clash #11 - Baltic Elephants - Tuesdays 15:00 CET

[Drasp]

Blondie should just demand his egyptian land from genoa and then join a war vs otto blob from all sides.
I am pretty sure there are multiple countries willing to take them out if the spoils are divided equaly. From my pov Genoa, Ethiopia, Venice, Theodoro and Hormuz are in danger from them. All can join in the spoils and so can Naples/Papal.

 

[Inochi]

Blondie should just demand his egyptian land from genoa and then join a war vs otto blob from all sides.
I am pretty sure there are multiple countries willing to take them out if the spoils are divided equaly. From my pov Genoa, Ethiopia, Venice, Theodoro and Hormuz are in danger from them. All can join in the spoils and so can Naples/Papal.

You would think the players are smarter than the AI right? In my Ironman runs as Trebizond etc. all their enemies wanted to kill me, I didn't even need THEIR land, only Empire rank. Why the heck didn't they want to join me to kill them?! The Mamelukes only wanted to be my friend after they lost the entire Levant. At that point they were useless compared to QQ who I saved to use their mountain forts for the attrition wars on the Osmans.

Actually Hormuz could try to secure the Eurasian mountains to fight the Turks later on if he can get their "attention" and wiggle them down. Of course only if their own "neighbors" and "friends" join the war. Otherwise you leave yourself vulnerable.

Trust has killed many a coalition.

 

[hillcf]

It's not. Normally AI fare MUCH worse in player games over time. So abandoned Scotland would die soon. All the power it had to accumulate the already active score was done by Sidestep.

What one can challenge - and I agree - is if both can count. The answer is NO. Obviously if a nation is abandoned only the higher one at the end country and only if you played it that age. So any new score for Scotland now is invalid obviously. He didn't play it in the age of reformation.

The sensible solution would be to take his score from Scotland when he left them and then add to that the difference between Dai Viet at the start of his period and that at the end of the age. That way we only see his impact on the score.

 

[Inochi]

The sensible solution would be to take his score from Scotland when he left them and then add to that the difference between Dai Viet at the start of his period and that at the end of the age. That way we only see his impact on the score.

If you can convince Groogy to go with it, be my guest. However, I actually think abandoning Scotland at all isn't reasonable. It was not dead yet and still had its capital. Being clearly smaller than the beginning, having less than 5 provinces and your capital taken etc. are valid reasons (yes Katz go with my blessing), but Scotland could pull through if they use diplomacy to get into Marketing somehow. And Portugal could help secure the seas. It doesn't like the Netherlands either.

 

[Bratyn]

It doesn't like the Netherlands either.

But the Netherlands likes it... Especially after last session!

 

[Inochi]

But the Netherlands likes it... Especially after last session!

We know you like their colonies - or future Gulags. Doesn't mean it wants to share.

 

[R.Graymarch]

So many changes at that session, and from the start (Scotland :/ )
Thanks for the session, it was fun. DDRJake, were you looking for "Jamais deux sans trois" ? (for Italian, I'll let more expert people speak)

 

[sprites]

yeah Portugal declared with the wrong gulag as objective , with the one on the island it would never have had stabhits

 

[Inochi]

yeah Portugal declared with the wrong gulag as objective , with the one on the island it would never have had stabhits

Depends on its speed. KJ began to build a navy when the invaders came. He just didn't expect to need one so early. So he needs to secure 50% quickly and push him out for 25%.

 

[yerm]

I was also thinking about defense to be fair. If the ottos come knocking they tend to kick the door open!

He definitely has better expansion opportunities than going into the ottos right now but at the same time seeing them grow and grow is a scary thing for neighbours.

AI Ottomans are like an angry bear. You don't have to outrun the bear, you just have to outrun the slowest person. So long as he has his own powerful army and/or the other neighbors are much weaker and not in a truce, he has a big green AI shield from Euro meddling in the middle east.

 

[kirell]

I know my German language, thank you. However similar derived words mean totally different things after X hundred years and roughly 2 people. Ever played the game "Whispers" or "Stille Post" in German?

The Kaisers of the holy roman empire saw themselves specifically as the only legitimate successors of the roman caesars. This meaning was never lost to "Stille Post". Also, just because roman caesars starting also used Imperator (which was basically a temporary honorific for successfull military commanders till they got their triumph) doesn't mean the "caesar" or "augustus" was somehow a less significant part of the titulature. Roman title is Imperator Caesar <Name> Augustus, or more often shortened to Imp. Caesar <Name> Augustus...

 

[Inochi]

The Kaisers of the holy roman empire saw themselves specifically as the only legitimate successors of the roman caesars. This meaning was never lost to "Stille Post". Also, just because roman caesars starting also used Imperator (which was basically a temporary honorific for successfull military commanders till they got their triumph) doesn't mean the "caesar" or "augustus" was somehow a less significant part of the titulature. Roman title is Imperator Caesar <Name> Augustus, or more often shortened to Imp. Caesar <Name> Augustus...

Language derives and changes from country to country... as some MIGHT have learned. And Caesar is a very nice example.

An example for English:

Today "to divest" means to sell off possesions or to strip someone. It once meant the opposite: To dress in Latin. So tell me do investors dress up their possesions? No? But it is derived from the same word!

Good job of not reading the rest. The Caesar title was quickly (roughly 2-3 centuries in) dilluted and gladly given to viceroys of the western empire and later in the eastern roman empire not even the main family branch title. It lost most of its glamour early on in the imperial era. During the end of its lifetime the title was a barely craved minor commodity.
A byzanthine ruler wanted to be Basileus and the West an Imperator. And all western rulers where emperors past the year of the four emperors (68 a.D.). And they all fielded the Imperator FIRST. The use of Caesar as a secondary title pretty much also ended with the western empire.

The Franks NEVER revived the Caesar, as during the remnants of Rome the Augustus was their primary title and they were given the papal right to reclaim the empire of Rome FIRST. The actual title was written in Latin and always stated:

Serenissimus Augustus a deo coronatus magnus, pacificus, imperator romanum gubernans imperium, qui et per misericordiam dei rex Francorum et Langobardorum.

Note: No CAESAR!

Also the HRE never revived the Caesar either. The German word for Emperor was created from the old Roman term of their rulers. It doesn't consist of anything associated with it however. Just like the French call Germans Allemagne, even though it has next to nothing to do with the actual German tribes that made up the later Germany. The actual title of the HRE emperor began as King of Germany AND Rome. Later on to be sanctioned by the pope as the defender of all Christianity, lord of all Franks/French and Slavs and ruler of Europe. Romanorum Imperator

The Latin term of Caesar NEVER reappeared... ever. Only the German term of Kaiser bears a rough origin in a word that once was used as a primary title in the dying Roman Republic. For a while.

Edit:

You can "respectfully disagree" all you want. Read up on it. Books aren't a devils tool.

 

[kirell]

Language derives and changes from country to country... as some MIGHT have learned. And Caesar is a very nice example.
Serenissimus Augustus a deo coronatus magnus, pacificus, imperator romanum gubernans imperium, qui et per misericordiam dei rex Francorum et Langobardorum.

(...)
You can "respectfully disagree" all you want. Read up on it. Books aren't a devils tool.

Sure, i love books. But i really - respectfully - have to disagree. Honestly thought you just quoted the one of his titles from Charleslemagnes wikipedia article. Still, the "Kaiserkrönung" was quite important (I assume you talk about Chalemagne here). Book example https://books.google.de/books?id=roFTAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA32 for him using Augustus, Caesar and Imperatror (why would he use less if he wants to be seen in this tradition)

edit:

The Latin term of Caesar NEVER reappeared... ever. Only the German term of Kaiser bears a rough origin in a word that once was used as a primary title in the dying Roman Republic. For a while.

Almost every roman ruler after Octavian was Imperator Caesar ... Augustus. So, for quite a long while. Also, you might look up the etymology of Caesar. ['kaɪ̯sar] if you use phonetic alphabet vs [ˈkaɪ̯zɐ] for modern "Kaiser". Every Ethymology book if found on short notice has Kaiser rooted in the roman caesar.

 

[Inochi]

It is an excerpt of discussion of Innocence the XI - or supposed one - from the 17th century. In which JOSEPH claims and says the title Caesar stems from a family of the olden times and which name was later used as an HONORARY - not main - title in the Roman Empire.
Some people WANT to attribute the title to Karl the Great he states, but no source finds it used. Yet he goes as far as attributing the full 3 Latin titles to him with no source. Some even claim the first emperor of the HRE might have used it, but again no source he can offer. However its first confirmed and viable source of possesion lies with Ludwig IV, Emperor in 1314 to 1328. He decided to adorn the full title of Caesar Augustus.

It is a good book, I propose you read it. It however does not contradict what I said.

Again it is said "Einige wollen es Carelo Magno zulegen, und andere Ottoni I. wiewohl beides sonder rechten Grund" = unproven

If you read on he also claims Otto I. got the right to Kaiser by sword alone and that all popes are the German Kaiser's rightful servant and conquest. Obviously the Pope IMMEDIATELY objects telling him every part of the Curia would be against him in this.

Almost every roman ruler after Octavian was Imperator Caesar ... Augustus. So, for quite a long while. Also, you might look up the etymology of Caesar. ['kaɪ̯sar] if you use phonetic alphabet vs [ˈkaɪ̯zɐ] for modern "Kaiser". Every Ethymology book if found on short notice has Kaiser rooted in the roman caesar.

I used this sentence post-Rome. I explained how it was used "in Rome" and in Byzanthium. So at least attribute it to the right time period. I didn't say the Roman Emperors of the west didn't use it as their secondary and honorary title.

 

[kirell]

It is a good book, I propose you read it. It however does not contradict what I said.

Again it is said "Einige wollen es Carelo Magno zulegen, und andere Ottoni I. wiewohl beides sonder rechten Grund" = unproven

Man, are you serious? Reading a bit more: "Einige wollen es Carelo Magno zulegen, und andere Otto I. wiewohl beides sonder rechten Grund. So viel ist aber aus der Historie klar, das von Ludovico an, die deutschen Könige sich beständig Kaiser genennet und geschrieben, in lateinischer Sprache aber die Worte Imperator, Caesar, Augustus gebraucht. Carolus Magnus hat sich alle drei Titel Imperator, Caesar, Augustgus gegeben." etc.

So unknown whether already Otto I used it, sure ok. But not whether it was used at all, nor whether Karl der Große used it.

 

[yerm]

This has been the worst derail in the history of derails, maybe ever.

 

[Inochi]

This is all said by Joseph and tried against Innocence the XI. If you read on as I quoted above, he immediately shuts him down on this preposterous claim of servitude etc. He also brings him to come out that the first true king of Germany was Maximillian I who lived in the 15th century... and so on... and on.

This is a beautiful piece of literature in its own right to judge the attitude of the Empire to the Pope after the Papal Dictate of Investiture and other conflicts between them. However your main source is the supposed author Joseph. And he doesn't even know how to write in Socratean dialogue.

None of the words you claim for yourself is uttered by the pope... even in this potentially fictional interview.

 

[kirell]

This has been the worst derail in the history of derails, maybe ever.

Sorry you are right. Don't know why such a minor detail got me started, i will stop now :/

This is all said by Joseph and tried against Innocence the XI. If you read on as I quoted above, he immediately shuts him down on this preposterous claim of servitude etc. He also brings him to come out that the first true king of Germany was Maximillian I who lived in the 15th century... and so on... and on.

This is a beautiful piece of literature in its own right to judge the attitude of the Empire to the Pope after the Papal Dictate of Investiture and other conflicts between them. However your main source is the supposed author Joseph. And he doesn't even know how to write in Socratean dialogue.

I may be wrong, its not my specialty and its pretty late. Sorry for derailing the thread

 

[Inochi]

No, don't be sorry, the book is great. It shows how the Empire or its people at least tried to subdue the pope by propaganda and use the legends of the HRE fundation and the Franks to stem the tide of Catholic interference. It however never happened. It is a fictional interview of the author in which he - terribly - tries to act as if he writes the pope into a corner, only giving the pope few if any lines as if he is lost for words.

Fun read, but not reliable source.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

Another session and largely more consolidation. Kudos to the colonizing nations for making a usually boring part of the world really interesting! The scoring system seems interesting, and is not as cripplingly punishing as last session's system, and encouraging building score from the get-go which is good, but could lead to some potentially undesirable outcomes like creating potentially insurmountable leads or encouraging someone to abandon their nations partway through eras so they get their "peak points" before their old tags see their scores collapse (think Scotland, but more blatant). Oh well, we shall see how things go and the experimentation is always heartening.

Burgundy and the Netherlands continued building their power base. The French Paradox better be careful however, or he could quickly find himself the junior partner in this alliance. A pity Burgundy's expansion was so inhibited by the protection on France this session.

The marketing department continues to peacefully trade around the Baltic and use Poland as their sledgehammer. However will the formation of Prussia force a response from their new allies in the Netherlands and Burgundy or will the AI alliance (and/or HRE protection) be sufficient deterrence?

Poor Blondie has had one of the strongest starts but unfortunately seems to have been shafted in points... oh well I'm sure he will do better now that he has laid the foundations of his empire so long as the Ottoblob can be contained.

India has been surprisingly quiet, but how long can the AI insulation really last before something sparks the thunderdome once more? The current sub-alliances seem to be Orissa-Nepal and Malwa-Gujarat, which doesn't look good for the former. Perhaps Hormuz could even the odds for the East?

A solid session for Dai Viet. Perhaps one day they shall follow in the footsteps of southeast Asians in past dev clashes and one day return to Europe to liberate Scotland.

The poor Italians getting constantly harassed by the neighbourhood bully... The Balkans have become a cesspool of corruption and crime, if only some Dark Knight could be found to free southeast Europe of its oppressors and make the streets safe once more. (Shoutout to Nitra however - the little AI that could!)

Meanwhile, Kaiser Johan betrays the republic once again... One could almost call him a Caesar Imperator Bonaparte Non-etymologically contentious democracy usurper from the new world - El Presidente!

Regardless, good luck to all and here's to another excellent clash!