• 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.
CqtOYoW.png

We regret that we must place this burden upon the people of Hispania, but we request your aid in our war with Austria. The Austrians have proven themselves to be a treacherous people, something Hispanians should understand more than most. Once they were a core member of the Quadruple Entente, but their actions during your most troubling times has proven them incapable of truly supporting their allies. That is why we have refused to renew our old alliance and now see ourselves at war with the Austrians. It is time that Hispania made a choice. The Austrians cannot be trusted. Do not continue to allow yourselves to be tied to them. Join us, your most trusted ally, and we can build the basis of a stronger alliance bloc, one without Austria. We have already sent word to Scandinavia requesting assistance. We understand you still maintain ties to Austria, but Hispania must choose now. Will you side with Austria over France and destroy an alliance that has held for three centuries or will you stand strong beside us? We eagerly await your reply.

- His Imperial Highness, Emperor Charles VIII de Valois of France

((While doing some testing, I noticed that France will issue us a call-to-arms if we reject the Austrian one. So instead of having to play a few days of the playthrough if we reject Austria's request, I've decided to lump them together. Now we'll be voting later on whether to side with Austria or France. We can also choose to reject both call-to-arms. Keep in mind that regardless of our choice, one or both alliances will be broken.))
 
Alejandro de Leon rose to speak.

"Many years ago, during the darkest days of the Civil War, the Austrians stabbed us in the back. Montsegur appealed to their greed, offering them our core territories in Italy, against the will of the loyal citizens there. Instead of siding with the legitimate government and trusted ally of many decades, they chose to support a traitor. After the war, they did the right thing and returned the land. Our government was generous enough to give Austria a second chance.

"It is true that they were not the aggressors in this war. The French have called us to a war which they started. I urge everybody to consider the consequences of siding with one country before coming to a decision. Side with Austria, who betrayed us once, and face an invasion of the heartland from over the Pyrenees. Or side with France, and easily defeat Austria. The second option might be the most obvious one to take--that's what I thought when I first thought about it--but remember, France is allied with Germany, who is led by Montsegur. An Austrian defeat could potentially create a power vacuum, which Germany would try to fill in. It is well known that Montsegur wants to unite all of the German peoples under the Sponheims. It is reasonable to infer that he would try to take as much land from Austria as possible in the peace, upsetting the balance of power in Europe. Of course, we could attempt to influence the peace deal and prevent Germany's expansion, but ultimately the French control the negotiations.

"All I am asking of you is to think carefully. That is all."
 
"We cannot go to war with France. That is simple. The French people have been our great allies for centuries, since the time of Aragon. To betray them for the Austrians. Foolish. The Austrians attacked us during the Phoenix War. To join hands with them in destroying our friends would be an act deserving of divine punishment. Notice, too, that France has not declared war on Austria, but Alsace. Austria has simply joined the war. Therefore, it is unlikely Germany will be able to expand greatly from it." — Minister of Religious Affairs, Second Minister.

((To me, it seems like political parties haven't done enough. Therefore, I propose a new mechanic, as such:
x party has ten members, who each have 1 VP. Therefore, if they all voted the same, they'd have a 10 VP power. However under the new system, all party members would have to vote the same. E.G. everyone has to vote Yes in favor of the Potato Act. Now, x party has ten members, so they're all one vote, which would normally be 10 VP, would be 12 VP.

How? Let number of members = n. Let party bloc voting power = v. Let voting power of all the members combined (so 2 VP + 1 VP, etc.) = g

v=g*(n/50+1)

12=10(10/50+1)
12=10(1.2)

This would create a strategic trade-off for joining parties. If you join, you don't have full freedom, but your vote has more power. How is the concept?))
 
"We cannot go to war with France. That is simple. The French people have been our great allies for centuries, since the time of Aragon. To betray them for the Austrians. Foolish. The Austrians attacked us during the Phoenix War. To join hands with them in destroying our friends would be an act deserving of divine punishment. Notice, too, that France has not declared war on Austria, but Alsace. Austria has simply joined the war. Therefore, it is unlikely Germany will be able to expand greatly from it." — Minister of Religious Affairs, Second Minister.

((To me, it seems like political parties haven't done enough. Therefore, I propose a new mechanic, as such:
x party has ten members, who each have 1 VP. Therefore, if they all voted the same, they'd have a 10 VP power. However under the new system, all party members would have to vote the same. E.G. everyone has to vote Yes in favor of the Potato Act. Now, x party has ten members, so they're all one vote, which would normally be 10 VP, would be 12 VP.

How? Let number of members = n. Let party bloc voting power = v. Let voting power of all the members combined (so 2 VP + 1 VP, etc.) = g

v=g*(n/50+1)

12=10(10/50+1)
12=10(1.2)

This would create a strategic trade-off for joining parties. If you join, you don't have full freedom, but your vote has more power. How is the concept?))

((Might be a little too soon. Political parties are in their infancy after all. Closer to 1836 would be better, when Vic2 starts such parties are inevitable. Besides, how would the party line get chosen?))
 
((Might be a little too soon. Political parties are in their infancy after all. Closer to 1836 would be better, when Vic2 starts such parties are inevitable. Besides, how would the party line get chosen?))
((It may be too soon. :confused: I don't know, Hispania is pretty/a few centuries ahead of its time. :p Party members would have a chat in which they IC vote over how they will vote. Of course, party organizers could customize it. ))
 
((It may be too soon. :confused: I don't know, Hispania is pretty/a few centuries ahead of its time. :p Party members would have a chat in which they IC vote over how they will vote. Of course, party organizers could customize it. ))

((I mean if anyone would like to form a political alliance/voting bloc they are free to do so. The rules should be left up to the members though. Hint Hint Wink Wink))
 
((To me, it seems like political parties haven't done enough. Therefore, I propose a new mechanic, as such:
x party has ten members, who each have 1 VP. Therefore, if they all voted the same, they'd have a 10 VP power. However under the new system, all party members would have to vote the same. E.G. everyone has to vote Yes in favor of the Potato Act. Now, x party has ten members, so they're all one vote, which would normally be 10 VP, would be 12 VP.

How? Let number of members = n. Let party bloc voting power = v. Let voting power of all the members combined (so 2 VP + 1 VP, etc.) = g

v=g*(n/50+1)

12=10(10/50+1)
12=10(1.2)

This would create a strategic trade-off for joining parties. If you join, you don't have full freedom, but your vote has more power. How is the concept?))

((I'm generally against forcing players to vote a specific way. Realistically, players should be coordinating votes anyway on their own. If a player votes different from their party, then it's the party's responsibility to keep them in line. I'd also then need every party to tell me before voting what the preferred vote for their party is under such a system. I'd prefer not to make the whole VP system even more complex when it's not really necessary. I think I'd prefer for players to simply coordinate their votes rather than manipulate VP.))
 
((Marshal plan: build two full exercits near the border with Austria, close enough that they can be quickly deployed once ready but behind one or two forts.))
 
Sophia smiled as the Marshal's plan was unveiled. It was time to see the Army grow again.

But now she needed to concern herself with other matters, like that Portuguese Baron.

The Baron was a Colonel during the Hispanian Civil War, and sided with General Leon when the Exercit Madrid was split in half. In part of his efforts and the needs of the Army, this baron found himself a Brigadier, and was promoted a few years ago to Sergent Major General. The man's brother (or was it cousin?) was serving as the Governor of Beira, and quite effectively too.

Regardless, the man and his family had caught the Empress's eye, and with the need for two more Lieutenant Generals, perhaps it was time for the man to see another promotion.

I believe that Sergent Major General António Dias, a Baron for Porto, would make a fine Lieutenant General of Hispania. If you agree with me, it might be advantageous to have him command one of the new Exercits.

Sophia de Trastamara.

((As you may remember, Sophia is the last of the Mandromenoi, and the dynasty dies with her. So I figured that I would need a new family to play. In this case, an ambitious Portuguese Baron. Figured that I would introduce him now.))
 
I remember Sergeant Major General Dias. He served at Granada and Damietta and was one of the first of the Exercit Madrid's officers to declare their loyalty to the Imperials. He shall make a fine Lieutenant General. I shall grant him field command of one of the new exercits.

Alejandro de Leon
 
"I oppose intervening on either side in this war, which is so plainly a petty squabble between foreign nations, and which should have no bearing upon our nation and its activities."


Cibran Arceo,
MA for Galicia

Even when one of those nations is our closest ally who aided us without expectation of reward? The good faith of the French has proven to be a great boon to Hispania in our darkest hour. We would be honorless and thankless to so readily return their good faith and loyalty with inaction.

Nay, Hispania must recognize and respect our faithful allies, and the French are the most faithful among them. We must raise arms for their cause as they have for us. With their aid we overcame the Phoenix, and thus we MUST return the favor.
 
Even when one of those nations is our closest ally who aided us without expectation of reward? The good faith of the French has proven to be a great boon to Hispania in our darkest hour. We would be honorless and thankless to so readily return their good faith and loyalty with inaction.

Nay, Hispania must recognize and respect our faithful allies, and the French are the most faithful among them. We must raise arms for their cause as they have for us. With their aid we overcame the Phoenix, and thus we MUST return the favor.

"Countrymen,

"The French have proven themselves to be warmongers, just as the Empress Dowager is. It is not a surprise, then, that they appear to hold the same position - that is, an unnecessary and detrimental war, which will only cost Hispanian lives in exchange for the vindication of the French aggressors. This is not a just war, but a war between our allies, and a war in which we must remain neutral.

"My position has been affirmed, may I remind the Prime Despot, by the judgment of this nation's own Minister of War, who is the leading official on all matters military. He has plainly stated that neutrality would likely be the most appropriate course in this conflict, just as I now do.

"I have no ill will towards any of our allies, however, we would do best to not interfere in what is naught but a petty squabble. We would be wrong to endorse the French in this conflict, namely because a refusal to aid the Austrians is an acceptance of Germany and a rejection of a weakened defender - quite surprising, in fact, given the Prime Despot's decision to appoint a religious figure to the Second Ministry. Was it not Christ who shared the Parable of the Good Samaritan? Was it not he who clearly expressed the need to care for those in need? Perhaps the Second Minister would like to share the Church's position?

"The French have proven a good ally in the past, but we must recall that what has been done has been done and perhaps shall never be done again. Neutrality is the only fair option, as well as the only option which maintains and strengthens the rights of citizens across the Empire. The Prime Despot and her thuggish cronies may feel at ease without fear for their lives, but I do not believe that sense of ease will belong to the honorable men who would serve in such an unnecessary and pointless conflict.

"Thank you."


Cibran Arceo,
MA for Galicia
 
"Countrymen,

"The French have proven themselves to be warmongers, just as the Empress Dowager is. It is not a surprise, then, that they appear to hold the same position - that is, an unnecessary and detrimental war, which will only cost Hispanian lives in exchange for the vindication of the French aggressors. This is not a just war, but a war between our allies, and a war in which we must remain neutral.

"My position has been affirmed, may I remind the Prime Despot, by the judgment of this nation's own Minister of War, who is the leading official on all matters military. He has plainly stated that neutrality would likely be the most appropriate course in this conflict, just as I now do.

"I have no ill will towards any of our allies, however, we would do best to not interfere in what is naught but a petty squabble. We would be wrong to endorse the French in this conflict, namely because a refusal to aid the Austrians is an acceptance of Germany and a rejection of a weakened defender - quite surprising, in fact, given the Prime Despot's decision to appoint a religious figure to the Second Ministry. Was it not Christ who shared the Parable of the Good Samaritan? Was it not he who clearly expressed the need to care for those in need? Perhaps the Second Minister would like to share the Church's position?

"The French have proven a good ally in the past, but we must recall that what has been done has been done and perhaps shall never be done again. Neutrality is the only fair option, as well as the only option which maintains and strengthens the rights of citizens across the Empire. The Prime Despot and her thuggish cronies may feel at ease without fear for their lives, but I do not believe that sense of ease will belong to the honorable men who would serve in such an unnecessary and pointless conflict.

"Thank you."


Cibran Arceo,
MA for Galicia
"May I remind you that I never urged anything, much less neutrality, in my prior speech?" said Alejandro. "I only asked that the representatives gathered here weigh the pros and cons of each course of action before deciding. I am not asking for anybody to support France or Austria or to remain neutral, just to think carefully before doing so."
 
"Countrymen,

"The French have proven themselves to be warmongers, just as the Empress Dowager is. It is not a surprise, then, that they appear to hold the same position - that is, an unnecessary and detrimental war, which will only cost Hispanian lives in exchange for the vindication of the French aggressors. This is not a just war, but a war between our allies, and a war in which we must remain neutral.

"My position has been affirmed, may I remind the Prime Despot, by the judgment of this nation's own Minister of War, who is the leading official on all matters military. He has plainly stated that neutrality would likely be the most appropriate course in this conflict, just as I now do.

"I have no ill will towards any of our allies, however, we would do best to not interfere in what is naught but a petty squabble. We would be wrong to endorse the French in this conflict, namely because a refusal to aid the Austrians is an acceptance of Germany and a rejection of a weakened defender - quite surprising, in fact, given the Prime Despot's decision to appoint a religious figure to the Second Ministry. Was it not Christ who shared the Parable of the Good Samaritan? Was it not he who clearly expressed the need to care for those in need? Perhaps the Second Minister would like to share the Church's position?

"The French have proven a good ally in the past, but we must recall that what has been done has been done and perhaps shall never be done again. Neutrality is the only fair option, as well as the only option which maintains and strengthens the rights of citizens across the Empire. The Prime Despot and her thuggish cronies may feel at ease without fear for their lives, but I do not believe that sense of ease will belong to the honorable men who would serve in such an unnecessary and pointless conflict.

"Thank you."


Cibran Arceo,
MA for Galicia

"May I remind you that I never urged anything, much less neutrality, in my prior speech?" said Alejandro. "I only asked that the representatives gathered here weigh the pros and cons of each course of action before deciding. I am not asking for anybody to support France or Austria or to remain neutral, just to think carefully before doing so."

Aye, and I have weighed the pros and cons of each choice and I have come to a conclusion. If we side with one nation, we lose the alliance with the other, but if we side with neither we lose both.

The esteemed former Steward is no diplomat, he clearly is not aware of how international relations are conducted or how influence is gained and maintained. If we pursue the neutrality he wishes, we will be further isolated from the rest of Europe, with ill will from our neighbors. Our Empire is vast and mighty, but even it cannot stand against the rest of the continent. We need allies, and need to do what if takes to ensure our relation with them continue. An isolated Empire is a mistake, one that we cannot afford to make.

It might be costly, and it may result in the unfortunate lose of life, but the good of the Empire requires we take a stand. And since we are to fight, we need choose the better ally. France has the superior military, and has been more faithful than Austria. Justice and Prudence demand that we side with them. And side with them we must.

Should the Assembly or the Cortz be so blind to not accept this, I call for the Emperor to veto that decision in favor of France regardless. This decision too important to allow to fail.

Also, I would like to remind the former Steward that defamation of one of the Imperial Family is inappropriate, and can be considered to be a criminal act by some. I would advise that you retract your previous statements before someone decides to take action for that.
 
Aye, and I have weighed the pros and cons of each choice and I have come to a conclusion. If we side with one nation, we lose the alliance with the other, but if we side with neither we lose both.

The esteemed former Steward is no diplomat, he clearly is not aware of how international relations are conducted or how influence is gained and maintained. If we pursue the neutrality he wishes, we will be further isolated from the rest of Europe, with ill will from our neighbors. Our Empire is vast and mighty, but even it cannot stand against the rest of the continent. We need allies, and need to do what if takes to ensure our relation with them continue. An isolated Empire is a mistake, one that we cannot afford to make.

It might be costly, and it may result in the unfortunate lose of life, but the good of the Empire requires we take a stand. And since we are to fight, we need choose the better ally. France has the superior military, and has been more faithful than Austria. Justice and Prudence demand that we side with them. And side with them we must.

Should the Assembly or the Cortz be so blind to not accept this, I call for the Emperor to veto that decision in favor of France regardless. This decision too important to allow to fail.

Also, I would like to remind the former Steward that defamation of one of the Imperial Family is inappropriate, and can be considered to be a criminal act by some. I would advise that you retract your previous statements before someone decides to take action for that.

"Countrymen,

"We are vastly superior in military capacity and might to virtually every nation in Europe. There is no danger in focusing within, rather than waging war. While I understand that the Prime Despot - who, yes, I shall continue to name thusly, for she has conceded her right not to be judged in the manner most accurate through the position of her office - has been desperately seeking an opportunity to sacrifice tens of thousands of good, true Hispanians, we can not allow her to have her way.

"His Majesty, the Emperor of Hispania has made the conscious decision to listen to the people of his nation, both noble and burgher alike, and utilizing one's position in the Imperial Household to attempt to sway him in such an unwise direction is the most grave insult which can be made to an enlightened monarch. If it was not clear why the Empress Dowager should not hold the Prime Ministry before, I believe that this has only made it clear.

"To endorse and support the Prime Despot is not dedication to justice, nor to liberty, but to an unrighteous predilection for warmongering which we ought not to support, and while she may accuse me of being an 'isolationist,' it is not surprising that such an incompetent administrator would not understand the intricacies of my position. That is, that a refusal to engage in petty matters is not a refusal to engage in international diplomacy, but a refusal to endorse the very same sort of warmongering which we have urged the Prime Despot to reject upon numerous prior occasions.

"Prudence errs not on the side of joining the French warmongers - and while it may be debated whether the wise course would be to join the Austrians in an effort to establish a balance of power in the European Continent, or whether to remain completely separate from this affair, I believe that it would be an exceptionally unwise decision in either circumstance to support the sort of destabilizing maneuvers executed by the French.

"Thank you."


Cibran Arceo
MA for Galicia
 
John proposed a plan for his Ministery:
Ministery Plan for the Ministery of the Interior:
-Develop the Province of Granada, Almeria, Gibraltar, Cadiz to improve their Production
-Develop the Province of Navarra, Pirineo, Zaragossa tom improve the number of men we can recruit for our army
-Develop all Provinces wich were already mentioned in the last Plan
-Build Building for Training and Recruiting of soldiers in Navarra, Pirineo, Valencia, Burgos, Siena, Urbino, Lucca
 
"I wish to once again point out the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister. Wasn't she responsible for the reconciliation effort towards Austria? And now she raises her voice against them? It is not like the political landscape has changed that much that this situation was imprevisible. France never forgave Austria their actions, and always eyed Alsace, gain access to the natural border of the Rhine. Sooner or later, this was bound to happen. It shows another lack of diplomatic foresight, a quality very important for a Prime Minister.

The Second Minister should support the Prime Minister and help him, or her in this case, to make the right decision. Yet this newly appointed Second Minister won't do anything else than just approving whatever she decides. Why do we have such an office if it is filled with a man who doesn't make his own decisions? Even more, a man who acts as religious head of the religious majority of Hispania. Certainly, that will satisfy the Catholics, but how can the man be impartial? Treat other beliefs as the empire does? There will be a bias. A step in the wrong direction!

There has to be another Second Minister - as it is, no member of the Assembly, one of the Parliament's two houses, holds any ministry! ((Liu isn't in the Assembly IIRC)) Why has the Assembly been created, if it is ignored? The reform had to give a voice to the people, but the ear that should listen is deaf. There is not only the Cortz! We can hardly debate any issues, be it the French or the Austrians, if what we have to say is not taken seriously, but just as some background noise from the rabble. Therefore I propose the following laws:
Assembly Ministry Act
At least half of the ministries in Hispania shall be held by members of the Assembly.
Lead Ministry Act
The offices of Prime Minister and Second Minister shall both be held by a member of the Parliament, both being from different houses.
I believe these acts are necessary to insure that the reforms haven't been for naught.

And I would like to remind the Prime Minister that the Assembly is a place where opinions are exchanged. No man shall be forced to retract a statement only because it might not be what another wants to hear. It is through discussion that we may reach consensus, compromise, our best course of action - that you wish to stop the use of this only proves that you are what MA Arceo is saying - a Prime Despot. I can only renew the call to remove her from office, as I do for the Second Minister."

Emiliano sat down again, and wondered if he should form a faction as well. None of the existing factions wanted enough for his taste.
 
Amendment to the Parliament Act, 1768
______________________________________

I. The Assembly shall be solely composed of three-hundred elected individuals, with all appointed positions in the Assembly being moved to the Cortz.

. . .

Religious Offices Act, 1768
______________________________________

I. CJC officials shall henceforth be barred from sitting in the Assembly, but shall instead be granted a fixed ten percent of seats in the Cortz.

II. The Ministry of Religious Affairs shall be dismantled, replaced with a Committee on Religious Affairs, which will be composed of officials representing all sects within the CJC.

. . .
 
JpsioAG.png

It is good to see members of Parliament propose reforms, but I have some concerns, mainly in how they would operate. While ensuring the Assembly is properly represented in the Cabinet may be a good idea, should not the Cortz be included in this consideration? Also, seeing as all ministers not in Parliament who are on the Cabinet automatically become members of the Assembly, this would only really limit the number of ministers that can come from the Cortz rather than ensure the representation of the Assembly. As for this law that restricts the Prime and Second Ministers to being members of Parliament but from different houses, this again causes issues. Seeing as the Second Minister cannot be a member of the Cortz and that any minister not in Parliament becomes a member of the Assembly, this changes nothing in who can become Second Minister, but instead forces it so that the Prime Minister must be a member of the Cortz seeing as the Second Minister is automatically a member of the Assembly. I find this restriction on who can be appointed Prime Minister counterproductive, although the nobles will surely approve of their sole control of that vital position. I also have some concerns about shifting members of the Assembly to the Cortz. The Cortz has long been representative of the nobility, but placing all these appointed members into the house will dilute their position and remove the whole purpose of the Cortz as a vehicle of the nobility. Also, would these appointed individuals serve as they would in the Assembly or are the positions only to exist until the members pass on? Would they become hereditary in the spirit of the rest of the Cortz? I feel I cannot support such a drastic shift in representatives without further explanation. I must also point out that the Committee of Religious Affairs is redundant, seeing as we already have the Council of Churches which exists for the sole purpose of representing all the sects of the Church of Jesus Christ and encouraging inter-faith relations. The Ministry of Religious Affairs is merely the government branch tasked with carrying out the will of the Council of Churches and the Crown in religious matters. Perhaps the reform should instead merge the existing ministry with the Council of Churches to avoid the creation of two identical religious bodies.

- His Imperial Highness, Alfons IX de Trastámara, Emperor of Hispania, Caesar of Rome, & Protector of the Greeks