• 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.
About post #1026 and alternative Burgundian capital events, BUR_137000 can still happen but action_b "Remain in Dijon" and its effects doesn't make sense. II and III don't have an option to stay in Dijon while original historical event have one. I think each Burgundian capital should sleep the other two and we need a new event to relocate in Brabant as soon as possible with only few effects if II or III happened before and Brussels flag is set (if Dijon action_b not chosen in II or III).

I still need a final proposal for the reworked Geldrian succession crisis sequence before inclusion.

i fully disagree with the capital staying in dijon as this has no benefit for AI or human. IMO i would remove option B

Why do we need to relocate to brabant? brussels modern day sits in flanders, in the game period that we play it sits on the borders of flanders, brabant and zeeland.

what post is the geldrian succession
EDIT: I agree with your proposal in post 1008
 
Last edited:
Are proposed monarchs still Nevers-Rethel?

What about the CoA and flag after the death of the Great Bastard then?

the monarchs i proposed are the ones broken from nevers and historically stayed with the brabant-Limburg line

The nevers line gets owned by the Gonzaga family of Mantua

I thought the flag was resolved, if not I prefer the brabant-limburg COA and flag
 
i fully disagree with the capital staying in dijon as this has no benefit for AI or human. IMO i would remove option B
The only benefit I see is the Crown of France that remains a possibility. It won't be the case with your proposal and a player will be "forced".

Why do we need to relocate to brabant? brussels modern day sits in flanders, in the game period that we play it sits on the borders of flanders, brabant and zeeland.
Zeeland could become a problem with the formation of the Netherlands, couldn't it? I don't remember if Burgundy is exempted but province should be ceded to Netherlands and Burgundian capital will be relocated if moved previously in this province. The formation of the Netherlands sequence must be checked.

what post is the geldrian succession
EDIT: I agree with your proposal in post 1008
Post #1005 with discussion in following posts (especially 1008, 1021 and 1031).
 
the monarchs i proposed are the ones broken from nevers and historically stayed with the brabant-Limburg line

The nevers line gets owned by the Gonzaga family of Mantua
Fine, I wasn't sure.

I thought the flag was resolved, if not I prefer the brabant-limburg COA and flag
No, it isn't resolved anymore after the death of the Great Bastard and the Valois' CoA. See mandead's proposal in post #990.

And your monarchs list doesn't fit this proposal.
 
Fine, I wasn't sure.

No, it isn't resolved anymore after the death of the Great Bastard and the Valois' CoA. See mandead's proposal in post #990.

And your monarchs list doesn't fit this proposal.

i do not understand his proposal as BUR will still inherit HAU in 1431


my monarchs list is to correct the monarchs if brabant does not get annexed by BUR
 
i do not understand his proposal as BUR will still inherit HAU in 1431
No, if action_b is chosen in reworked HAU_3775, Brabant will remain independent and monarch will be Anton II - The Great Bastard (reworked 057504). Problem for CoA arises after his death in 1504.

my monarchs list is to correct the monarchs if brabant does not get annexed by BUR
I understand but there is no need before 1504 and mandead proposed a reworked list too (see last CODE tag in post #990).
 
Zeeland could become a problem with the formation of the Netherlands, couldn't it? I don't remember if Burgundy is exempted but province should be ceded to Netherlands and Burgundian capital will be relocated if moved previously in this province. The formation of the Netherlands sequence must be checked.

Post #1005 with discussion in following posts (especially 1008, 1021 and 1031).

The capital can be moved again to Flanders as this was Philippe le Beau resistance
so BUR_137021 can be used to make a capital move
 
The ideal HAU dynastic line would be the Great Bastard's children, grandchildren & so on, but I couldn't find them.

Perhaps, Yoda, you could find further information from your French sources?

If we can't find anything, however, I have no idea as to who should succeed him in 1504. As long as it's plausible I don't mind, but remember it's a French line, not a Dutch/Limburg one. This can be changed with suggestions provided by Toio or anyone else, though.

In short, I have no idea after 1504. :)

Sorry about lack of updates of late, PC fried once again!
 
The ideal HAU dynastic line would be the Great Bastard's children, grandchildren & so on, but I couldn't find them.

Perhaps, Yoda, you could find further information from your French sources?

If we can't find anything, however, I have no idea as to who should succeed him in 1504. As long as it's plausible I don't mind, but remember it's a French line, not a Dutch/Limburg one. This can be changed with suggestions provided by Toio or anyone else, though.

In short, I have no idea after 1504. :)

Sorry about lack of updates of late, PC fried once again!

this could be what you are after

Dukes of Nevers

The French dukes were also known as the ducs de Nivernois.

* Francis I (1521–1562) (His mother, Marie of Albret (d. 1549), widow of Charles II, also took the title in 1539, even though it was her son and his wife who became the actual duke and duchess.)
* Francis II (1562–1563)
* James (1563–1564)
* Henriette (1564–1601)
o Louis Gonzaga (1566–1595)
o Charles I Gonzaga (1595–1637)
* Charles III Gonzaga (1637–1659)
* Cardinal Mazarin (1659–1661)
* Philip Julian Mancini (1661–1707)
* Philip Julius Francis Mancini (1707–1768)
* Louis-Jules Mancini (1768–1798)
 
revolt fix

FRI = { #Friesland
no = HOL
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1419 }
expirydate = { day = 29 month = december year = 1558 }
minimum = { 337 }
extra = { }
capital = 337
group = latin
culture = dutch
#ai = "trader.ai"
ai = "SmallTrade0.ai"
}
 
Thanks, I made a mistake and added the line to the FRA revolter (just above... :eek:o ) in betas. Fixed!

yes, i noticed , it was strange, but then I thought it was in reference to "old " france
 
Core for Curacao

Code:
#(1634-1820) Settlement of Curaçao
event = {
	id = 186088
	trigger = {
		owned = { province = 153 data = -1 }
		control = { province = 153 data = -1 }
		NOT = { provincereligion = { province = 153 data = pagan } } #not a TP
	}
	random = no
	country = HOL
	name = "EVENTNAME186088" #Settlement of Curaçao
	desc = "EVENTHIST285314"
	#-#The first colonists have arrived.

	date = { day = 8 month = january year = 1634 }
	offset = 360
	deathdate = { year = 1820 }

	action_a = {
		name = "EXCELLENT"
		command = { type = addcore which = 153 } #Curacao
	}
}
 
Code:
#(1667-1820) Division of Guiana
#by sturmvogel
event = {
	id = 186089
	trigger = {
		owned = { province = 181 data = -1 } #Surinam
		control = { province = 181 data = -1 } #Surinam
		NOT = { core = { province = 181 data = -1 } }
		NOT = { provincereligion = { province = 181 data = pagan } } #not a TP
	}
	random = no
	country = HOL
	name = "EVENTNAME170331" #Division of Guiana
	desc = "EVENTHIST170331"
	#-#

	date = { day = 29 month = july year = 1667 }
	offset = 10
	deathdate = { year = 1820 }

	action_a = {
		name = "EXCELLENT"
		command = { type = addcore which = 181 } #Surinam
	}
}
#(1667-1820) Division of Guiana
#by sturmvogel
event = {
	id = 186090
	trigger = {
		owned = { province = 180 data = -1 } #Guyana
		control = { province = 180 data = -1 } #Guyana
		NOT = { core = { province = 180 data = -1 } }
		NOT = { provincereligion = { province = 180 data = pagan } } #not a TP
	}
	random = no
	country = HOL
	name = "EVENTNAME170331" #Division of Guiana
	desc = "EVENTHIST170331"
	#-#

	date = { day = 29 month = july year = 1667 }
	offset = 10
	deathdate = { year = 1820 }

	action_a = {
		name = "EXCELLENT"
		command = { type = addcore which = 180 } #Guyana
	}
}
#(1814-1820) Cession of Guyana
#by sturmvogel
event = {
	id = 186091
	trigger = {
		owned = { province = 180 data = -1 } #Guyana
		control = { province = 180 data = ENG } #Guyana
		core = { province = 180 data = -1 }
		NOT = { provincereligion = { province = 180 data = pagan } } #not a TP
	}
	random = no
	country = HOL
	name = "EVENTNAME186091" #Cession of Guyana
	desc = "EVENTHIST186091"
	#-#

	date = { day = 13 month = august year = 1814 }
	offset = 10
	deathdate = { year = 1820 }

	action_a = {
		name = "EXCELLENT"
		command = { type = removecore which = 180 } #Guyana
		command = { type = trigger which = 164272 } #ENG: Cession of Guyana
	}
}
 
starting serfdom for FRI should not be 9, they where never under control by one monarch/chief.

i suggest starting number should be 4
 
But low serfdom doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "never under control by one monarch/chief".

Serfdom

Full serfdom's main benefit is the -25% in stability cost but serfdom also gives a -2D cost for infantry. This comes at the price of -10% production efficiency and -0.25 land morale. The free subjects setting is just the opposite.

Because of stability costs, size is the main determinant here. If you are big or plan to become big, you want to enserf your minions. If you are small or medium and choose to remain that size, orient yourself toward free subjects.


FRI was small, had free subjects, military only locally organised and had stab issues
 
Serfdom

Full serfdom's main benefit is the -25% in stability cost but serfdom also gives a -2D cost for infantry. This comes at the price of -10% production efficiency and -0.25 land morale. The free subjects setting is just the opposite.

Because of stability costs, size is the main determinant here. If you are big or plan to become big, you want to enserf your minions. If you are small or medium and choose to remain that size, orient yourself toward free subjects.


FRI was small, had free subjects, military only locally organised and had stab issues

that is true for the first 200+ years. however if goods/trade levels 7/8 or above as well as if an agressive trader, stability costs inquiered via low serfdom becomes quiet irrelevant.

keeping high serfdom and low innovative OR the opposite during the first 200 years(bb levels must be increased slowlly if at all during this times, but never under 3bb since would be a "loss" of oportunities and eu2 "TIME" line). as such it gives best results as well as the ability to expand and increase size without loosing tech races versus ai.

i personally prefer MAXIM innovative or at least 8 by the time i reached infra 3(1460;s when switch to land research if a neighbour to any "major") and full serfdom as well. post 1600's i reverse the equation and end game even with 0 serfdom and 0 innovative as well as 0 merchantil thus still having 12 merchants/year even if one cot and as such i can bypass any relevance into frequet ai embargos and get them a lot, thus snatching cots in CB wars more appealing( depending on random events as well).