• 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.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Stone of Destiny

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck
Interesting! Can you say if there are any more additions to triggers or effects for events that are in the works! :)

Some of the broken one are fixed :D (cot, breakvassal, wakemonarch)

New ones are to declare war and grant independance (create vassal).
 
Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Is there a Julich-Cleves controversy in the game? As a lead up to the 30 years war this played a role, and led to Prussia having Cleves and Mark. Don't have EU2, but I could come up with some ideas for this one. The contenders were Brandenburg (Reformed/Calvinist) and Palatine-Neuburg (apostate Lutheran, turned Catholic). Territories at stake were Julich Cleves Berg and Mark.

I just scripted it, two hours ago! :D

I'm doing some events by suggestions from Demetrios. This was one of them.
 
Re: Re: Re: Burgundy Question

Originally posted by Lambert Simnel
If Burgundy is big enough (is there an event trigger for 'bigness'?) then it might have magnates powerful enough to warant marriage to Mary in which case it could remain independent without the hassle.

Unfortunately - no "bigness"-trigger...

Of course, if Burgundy had been large enough and Austria small enough it would have been Austria eaten by Burgundy, not the other way around...
 
Originally posted by Gnome
Greven:-
"I never found any serious opposition to the accession and neither did I find any contenders so I viewed it very uncontroversial and thus the meekness of the event.:)"

The alternative claimant was Edward Seymour. Under laws passed by Henry VIII the succession went Edward, Mary, Elizabeth, then bypassed his sister Margaret and her Stuart descendents (so as not to let the throne fall into the hands of the Scots) and passed to the descendents of Henry's younger sister Mary Tudor. This claim went on to be vested in Mary's granddaughter the nine-day queen Lady Jane Grey. After Jane's executed however, her sister Lady Catherine Grey remained at court and close to Mary.

By 1603 Lady Catherine Grey was dead and James VI acceded without controversey. However, earlier in Elizabeth's reign there had been much debate over who her heir would be - Mary, Queen of Scots or Lady Catherine Grey. A good point for an event would be Elizabeth being taken down with smallpox in 1562. It was thought that she would not recover and her advisors pushed her to name her heir, in our time line Elizabeth refused and made a full recovery, despite Cecil's attempts to have her stick to the terms of her father's will and name Catherine Grey as her heir, rather than the heir by primogeniture Mary Queen of Scots. Naturally if Elizabeth had named Catherine as heir it is possible that Edward Seymour would be seen as the natural heir in 1603.

The only problem in 1603 with the Seymour decendents of Katherine Grey was that at the time the marriage between Katherine and Edward Seymour was not considered valid, due to Elizabeth I's disapproval of the whole thing. Because they knew that Elizabeth would never approve of a marriage between two people so close to the throne, Katherine and Edward were secretly married. The witness to the marriage (Edward's sister) soon died, they never got the name of the priest who married tham, and Katherine lost the documentation. They managed to keep the thing a secret until Katherine got pregnant, and then there was hell to pay. Elizabeth was livid (whe was always jealous of others who got married anyway), and jailed the two in the Tower. They were supposed to separated, but Katherine got pregnant again. The two were then sent to exile in deparate places in the country,and their marraige was ruled invalid due to lack of witnesses and records. Thus in 1603, the younger Edward Seymour and his brother were considered bastards and thus unable to inherit the throne. They were ligitimized only later. In 1603, as I stated above, Arabella Stuart was the only other serious claimnant to the throne, but she was mentally unstable and thus no one seriously considered her. Interestingly enough, she later secretly married Edward Seymour's son and caused quite a furor by doing so as this marraiged brought together two claims to the throne...
 
Re: Re: Re: Burgundy Question

Originally posted by Lambert Simnel
If Burgundy is big enough (is there an event trigger for 'bigness'?) then it might have magnates powerful enough to warant marriage to Mary in which case it could remain independent without the hassle.

One way you could do it is to have, as the trigger, that Burgundy must hold certain provinces. This is how the end of the Hundred Years' War is modelled. If England doesn't hold province X, Y, & Z, they lose french as a state culture.
 
Last edited:
I want to do some changes to the cultures in the British Isles, but the types of available cultures can't be changed (i.e. splitting Gaelic into Irish, Scottish, Welsh, & Breton). So, here is what I'm thinking:

Current Model

- "english" in all English provinces
- "gaelic" in all Irish and Scottish provinces, plus Wales
- Wales turns from gaelic to english as a result of the end of the English Civil War (triggered by both 3026 "Cromwell and the Republic" & 3771 "King Charles and the New Monarchy)
- England gains "gaelic" as a culture through the Act of Union with Scotland (3037)

Problem: When England gains "gaelic," it not only applies to its Scottish provinces, but also to its Irish provinces, which isn't historical.

Proposed Model

- same starting cultures in British Isles provinces
- Wales turns from gaelic to english as a result of the Welsh Act of Union (1536), a new event
- all four Scottish provinces turn from gaelic to english as a result of an altered Act of Union with Scotland event (revised 3037)
- thus, England never gains gaelic as a state culture, and therefore the culture penalty will always apply to its Irish provinces
- an event would be added that, if Scotland regains independence after 1700, english would also be a state culture, so it is not penalized

Any thoughts?
 
By 1419 the lowland Scots weren't Gaelic. Norman influence starting in the 12th cantury had brought them closer to England than to their highland cousins.
 
Originally posted by Johnny Canuck
- Wales turns from gaelic to english as a result of the Welsh Act of Union (1536), a new event
Doh! I thought that was in the game; I listed it as a necessary event for England back when Greven was doing the original scripting, it must have slipped through. I'll get right on that now...
 
Originally posted by Dark Knight

Doh! I thought that was in the game; I listed it as a necessary event for England back when Greven was doing the original scripting, it must have slipped through. I'll get right on that now...

Um, I guess that means I don't need to script that one! :)
 
Originally posted by Lambert Simnel
By 1419 the lowland Scots weren't Gaelic. Norman influence starting in the 12th cantury had brought them closer to England than to their highland cousins.

Hmm, I guess that would make Strathclyde and Lothian english, and the Grampians and the Highlands gaelic. Does that sound right? I think that, in that case, Scotland should also have english as a state culture, so they don't get penalized.

Another question: Where is it defined in the files what the default state cultures are for countries that don't exist at the start of a given scenario? Say for Scotland in 1700, if they emerge later in the 1700s, can their profile be edited so that they have gaelic & english as state cultures right from the start?
 
Originally posted by Johnny Canuck


Um, I guess that means I don't need to script that one! :)

And I'll bring up the Gunpowder Plot. I am very surprised that such an important event (commemorated in England even to this day) was overlooked...
 
Do the Wars of the Roses events need expandng upon? I started sketching out some English events for the end of the Hundred Year War and Jack Cade's rebellion but seem to have been side tracked into the Wars of the Roses and how to avoid them (conquer France and then give it to Edward Earl of March).
 
Last edited:
Armagnacs

In 1444 after the Truce of Tours between France and England Charles VII saw the risk that unemployed soldiers would begin terrorising the French countryside as they had after the Treaty of Bretigny in 1360. His solution to this problem was to hire these soldiers and use them in an invasion of Switzerland. This produced an army of 40,000 troops called the Armagnacs who fought the Swiss at St Jacob-en-Birs.

I would therefore suggest an event that happens the first time france is at peace where they are offered the choice of hiring this army at standard rates (or maybe a bit below) or having revolts spring up in the areas of France that were typically fought over in the Hundred Year War. These revolts should happen irregardless of who owns these lands, but I don't know if this is doable.

PS does a peace between France and England automatically end the Hundred Years War or is it possible for an inconclusive peace to lead to a more fighting later on?
 
Never mind the Normans, lowlands Scottish culture has been anglo-saxon (or whatever the culture is in EUII) for as long as lowlands English culture has been. It might have taken the anglo-saxons a couple of hundred years more to drive the Celts into the highlands than it did in England, but I think Edinburgh at least was conquered in the seventh century. Lowland Scots is far from being a Celtic language.
Modern Scotland was formed as a union between various Celtic, Pictish and anglo-saxon kingdoms; it should have gaelic, anglosaxon, and possibly scandinavian as its cultures. I guess Paradox did it the way they did for gameplay reasons (not that I know how they did it, not having the game).
If you like you could add an event in 1814, "Walter Scott writes 'Waverly'" that would turn all of Scotland Gaelic.


As for the Gunpowder plot, it sounds as though the player is still free to mess around with religious tolerance without interference. Probably this is to help the AI. As far as I know the main effect of the plot, or at least the main thing it symbolizes, was an immense increase in the persecution of Catholics.
 
Originally posted by Lambert Simnel
Do the Wars of the Roses events need expandng upon? I started sketching out some English events for the end of the Hundred Year War and Jack Cade's rebellion but seem to have been side tracked into the Wars of the Roses and how to avoid them (conquer France and then give it to Edward Earl of March).

I agree. The way the War of the Roses works now could be greatly expanded upon. My opinion is that the major options for who rules should be available to the player, with relevant consequences. The only exception being that, at some point, Henry VIII needs to come to the throne, in order to keep history on track for the Tudors, Stuarts, etc. About a week ago I posted in this threat some thoughts on various Bosworth Field alternatives. What are your thoughts?
 
I just finished scripting an event for England on John Wilkes. Any comments would be great:

Event: John Wilkes
Country: England
Description: John Wilkes, a member of Parliament for Middlesex, then an Alderman for London, pushed the boundaries of acceptable political expression by satirising King George III and mocking the established elites. He advocated extensive parliamentary reform, and was seen as a potential revolutionary by the political leadership.
Trigger(s): 1765 to 1780
Serfdom Value Greater Than or Equal to 2
Aristocracy Value Greater Than or Equal to 2
Effect(s):
A: Suppress Wilkes
+1 Aristocracy
+1 Centralization
+1 Serfdom
-100 Treasury
-1 Stability
B: Let Wilkes Be
-1 Aristocracy
-2 Serfdom
-2 Stabilty
+2 Revolt Risk for 24 Months
 
Dunno if this is in EU2 already, but here goes:

Event: Burgundy Withdrawl from 100 Years War
Country: Burgundy
Description: Duke Philip the Good of Burgundy struck a deal
with the French king. He withdrew his support of the
English in France in exchange for full sovereignty in his
lands in France including Burgundy and Flanders.
Philip's lands in the Empire were still not independent.
Despite his dependence on the Holy Roman Empire,
Duke Philip was recognized as an equal of the greatest
monarchs of Europe.
Trigger(s): Burgundy controls the provences of Champange, Nivernais (not owned). | Or maybe this could be a event that just pops up as random event from 1419 untill Philip the Good's death.
Effect(s):
A: Let us end this war once and for all.
France gets white peace with Burgundy
France garuntees Burgundy's independence, and Burgundy does the same to France. Maybe France loses CBs on Burgundy's French holdings untill the event where Charles the Rash dies and then CBs return no matter the outcome of that event.
Burgundy's relations with France +100
Burgundy's relations with England -150
Burgundy gets out of alliance with English
B: Let us fight on!
Burgundy's relations with England +100
Burgundy's stability -1

Of course French have to accept Burgundy's offer but I don't know how to do triggers.

Event: Burgundy Withdrawl from 100 Years War
Country: France
Description: Duke Philip the Good of Burgundy struck a deal
with the French king. He withdrew his support of the
English in France in exchange for full sovereignty in his
lands in France including Burgundy and Flanders.
Philip's lands in the Empire were still not independent.
Despite his dependence on the Holy Roman Empire,
Duke Philip was recognized as an equal of the greatest
monarchs of Europe.
Trigger(s): Burgundy controls the provences of Champange, Nivernais (not owned). | Or maybe this could be a event that just pops up as random event from 1419 untill Philip the Good's death.
Effect(s):
A: Let us end this war with Burgundy once and for all.
France gets white peace with Burgundy
France garuntees Burgundy's independence, and Burgundy does the same to France. Maybe France loses CBs on Burgundy's French holdings untill the event where Charles the Rash dies and then CBs return no matter the outcome of that event.
France's relations with Burgundy +100
B: Let us fight on!
France's relations with Burgundy -50
France's Stability -1
 
Event: Attempt to assassinate Lorenzo de Medici
Country: Papal States
Description: In the late 15th century, Lorenzo de Medici, the
Magnificent, ruled Florence as "first citizen" without
holding any official post or title. He was the keystone
of the Italian balance of power. In 1478 the Pope and
his allies, the Pazzi family, attempted to assassinate
Lorenzo and his brother Giuliano. Giuliano was killed,
but Lorenzo escaped. King Ferdinand of Naples, the
Pope's ally, made war against Florence and also
convinced the Genoese to rebel against Lorenzo's ally,
the duke of Milan. But a personal visit by Lorenzo to
Naples persuaded Ferdinand to end the war just as
the Turks were preparing land in Italy.  The balance of
power was restored. 

Trigger(s): Anytime in 1470s and 1480s. Florence exists, and Papal States exists.

Effects(s):
A: Let us attempt to assassinate him.
Give Florence temporary CB untill late 1480s or 1490s against Papal States and Naples.
Papal States' relation with all Italian minors -50
Papal States' relation with Florence -200
B: No, we must keep the balance of power.
+50 ducats since they don't have to take cash out of the assasination fund.