The deathdate should be 1515 (1st JAN), as that's the deathdate for the other Crown of France events...
-
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.
1666
I'm not sure about the AGC, but the EEP doesn't have anything about the Great Plague of 1665, Great Fire of 1666, and the rebuilding of London & St. Paul's (or even a Christopher Wren event). Off the top of my head, I'd suggest something like:
Event name: Rebuilding London
Desc: In autumn of 1666, a massive fire ravaged London, putting an end to the city Shakespeare had known. The great cathedral of St. Paul's has been destroyed.
Date: August - October 1666
Option A: Have Christopher Wren rebuild the city and St. Paul's
Anglia loses 5000 pop. -400d.
Option B: Just Rebuild St. Paul's
Anglia loses around 25000 pop, 6 tax value and 3 manpower. -2 Stability. -50d.
If A) could trigger an event in 1675 for the completion of the new St. Paul's (+Stability & VPs), that would be spiffy.
B) should probably trigger a later "London Recovers" event to heal some of the scars. My estimates of the damage done to Anglia by the fire are reasonably conservative; certainly, the devastation of the region's entrepot would have impaired taxation and recruitment there.
(I suppose it would be easier to use the sleepevent command to have A exclude London Recovers & B exclude St. Paul's. )
I gave some thought to candyland options, like moving the capital to, say, York (or Paris!), but I'm not sure that they're justified. If the long-term damage to Anglia is considered to be excessive, then just having the population damage along with a revolt (the King says we won't get new houses?) and increased revolt risk in Anglia would work quite nicely.
Thoughts? Comments?
I'm not sure about the AGC, but the EEP doesn't have anything about the Great Plague of 1665, Great Fire of 1666, and the rebuilding of London & St. Paul's (or even a Christopher Wren event). Off the top of my head, I'd suggest something like:
Event name: Rebuilding London
Desc: In autumn of 1666, a massive fire ravaged London, putting an end to the city Shakespeare had known. The great cathedral of St. Paul's has been destroyed.
Date: August - October 1666
Option A: Have Christopher Wren rebuild the city and St. Paul's
Anglia loses 5000 pop. -400d.
Option B: Just Rebuild St. Paul's
Anglia loses around 25000 pop, 6 tax value and 3 manpower. -2 Stability. -50d.
If A) could trigger an event in 1675 for the completion of the new St. Paul's (+Stability & VPs), that would be spiffy.
B) should probably trigger a later "London Recovers" event to heal some of the scars. My estimates of the damage done to Anglia by the fire are reasonably conservative; certainly, the devastation of the region's entrepot would have impaired taxation and recruitment there.
(I suppose it would be easier to use the sleepevent command to have A exclude London Recovers & B exclude St. Paul's. )
I gave some thought to candyland options, like moving the capital to, say, York (or Paris!), but I'm not sure that they're justified. If the long-term damage to Anglia is considered to be excessive, then just having the population damage along with a revolt (the King says we won't get new houses?) and increased revolt risk in Anglia would work quite nicely.
Thoughts? Comments?
Very nice, flavour events are always nice (and always in short supply in my opinion)! Any reason that option B is "Rebuild St. Pauls" and not "Don't rebuild a damned thing!". Was St.Paul so incredibly important that the very thought of leaving it in ruins was unthinkable to the English kings? No critisism, just a curious question 
B isn't representing the Crown forking out for the historical St. Paul's, but a more subdued affair. I don't think that leaving London without a cathedral was on the cards, though I'm hardly an expert on the matter.
So no one is going to make any comment at all about the idea of unifying the French and English crowns? Just curious. The post has been there for like a month with one minor reply .
.
To be honest...
I think the England-France union is arranged the wrong way. The "natural" course should be for the centre of gravity to be in France (senior kingdom, larger population, nicer climate). Of course, that's going to create revolt problems in England.
A better way to deal with it might be to give England the option of becoming France, but having a few major English revolts scripted in for France.
I think the England-France union is arranged the wrong way. The "natural" course should be for the centre of gravity to be in France (senior kingdom, larger population, nicer climate). Of course, that's going to create revolt problems in England.
A better way to deal with it might be to give England the option of becoming France, but having a few major English revolts scripted in for France.
A very interesting idea. This would also make for some interesting events once the Reformation got started. Imagine, his most Catholic Majesty ruling over an island full of Protestants! And how would Elizabeth, not Queen but a great noble instead, react to Protestantism in a Catholic country? Or perhaps, the Protestant majority in England would give the Hugenots the support they needed to take control and found a Protestant dynasty in France! Anyway, I notice that no one has picked up on the Wales idea. It could be quite intriguing, having a pan-Celtic Empire in France and the British Isles. Would France risk getting involved in power struggles in Italy with the Welsh army at his back? All such things need discussion, who's up for it?
It should be mentioned that Britain was most certainly not "an island full of protestants" until relatively late in the EU period. The English did, however, have an evolved understanding of their own nationhood; and therein lied the success of the Anglican church.
Across the channel, as I understand it, Protestant religion held little appeal for the elites, given the existing loyalties of the Gallican church. To put that another way, Elizabeth's religious programme would have been old hat in Paris.
Still, with those two assumptions in hand, we could contemplate a protestant-english revolution against (re)Gallicised Plantagenets. The Tudors would be a passable choice for this sort of thing, given the organisation ability of Hank 7 and Liz, and of course, Hank 8's "golden boy" image.
A bit of a ripoff of history's Dutch Revolt, mind you.
Across the channel, as I understand it, Protestant religion held little appeal for the elites, given the existing loyalties of the Gallican church. To put that another way, Elizabeth's religious programme would have been old hat in Paris.
Still, with those two assumptions in hand, we could contemplate a protestant-english revolution against (re)Gallicised Plantagenets. The Tudors would be a passable choice for this sort of thing, given the organisation ability of Hank 7 and Liz, and of course, Hank 8's "golden boy" image.
A bit of a ripoff of history's Dutch Revolt, mind you.
Completly OT, but I keep confusing you two! You both use the Rebel Scum shield, both you names start with A (sort of...), you both registered in a month beginning with Ma (-r or -y), and you both have your location written as City/Country!
Of course, Isaac Brock confused me with Atreidas...
You both use the Rebel Scum shield, both you names start with A (sort of...), you both registered in a month beginning with Ma (-r or -y), and you both have your location written as City/Country!Of course, Isaac Brock confused me with Atreidas...
Last edited:
Also, would there have been a War of the Roses with a victorious England? If so, what form would it take?
Sorry to go off at a tangent, but has anyone ever cosidered a 'Lady Jane Grey' event for England?
Edward the bleh...th (son of Henry VIII) named her as his succesor on his deathbed to avoid the catholic Mary becoming queen. She was killed 9 days later, and Mary assumed the throne.
It would be cool though to have an option to keep her as a monarch and totally change the English succesion.
----
I think that uniting England and France is a really cool (and very realisitic) idea...
Maybe an event could have four options upon union...
* Lands of France are treated as English territory (maintain status quo)
* England is the senior kingdom (France released as vassal of England)
* France is the senior kingdom (England becomes France, and released England as vassal)
* We reclaim our French Herritage (England becomes France, England is french territory).
Sorry they have such bad names.
Edward the bleh...th (son of Henry VIII) named her as his succesor on his deathbed to avoid the catholic Mary becoming queen. She was killed 9 days later, and Mary assumed the throne.
It would be cool though to have an option to keep her as a monarch and totally change the English succesion.
----
I think that uniting England and France is a really cool (and very realisitic) idea...
Maybe an event could have four options upon union...
* Lands of France are treated as English territory (maintain status quo)
* England is the senior kingdom (France released as vassal of England)
* France is the senior kingdom (England becomes France, and released England as vassal)
* We reclaim our French Herritage (England becomes France, England is french territory).
Sorry they have such bad names
.
I have a somewhat sequence about a weak England and Catherine Grey but nothing on Jane.
anti_strunt - just remember that I'm the 2002 edition
Archaalen - I don't think there would have been a War of the Roses in the case that the English Crown was able to placate ambitious nobles with French lands. This wouldn't be a problem if we go with a "England becomes France" option; as the English events won't be in use while the WotR could fire.
Though, perhaps there could be a "Yorkist Rebellion" event.
NeilJT, I'd advise against that set-up. If we want to give the player the option of remaining England, I think the best way to do so would be to have the event read:
Personal Union of France, England and Wales - Become France, unsleep/sleep a bunch of French monarchs, unsleep/sleep a few French leaders, transfer the Cores (or, if we want to sucker the player, have an event fire on the succession of a certain monarch to remove the English cores).
Become Kings of France; let York have England - Release French provinces, put the Yorkist dynasty into the English succession, maybe switch the vassalisation around, and certainly cancel the WotR!
Archaalen - I don't think there would have been a War of the Roses in the case that the English Crown was able to placate ambitious nobles with French lands. This wouldn't be a problem if we go with a "England becomes France" option; as the English events won't be in use while the WotR could fire.
Though, perhaps there could be a "Yorkist Rebellion" event.
NeilJT, I'd advise against that set-up. If we want to give the player the option of remaining England, I think the best way to do so would be to have the event read:
Personal Union of France, England and Wales - Become France, unsleep/sleep a bunch of French monarchs, unsleep/sleep a few French leaders, transfer the Cores (or, if we want to sucker the player, have an event fire on the succession of a certain monarch to remove the English cores).
Become Kings of France; let York have England - Release French provinces, put the Yorkist dynasty into the English succession, maybe switch the vassalisation around, and certainly cancel the WotR!
I wonder how Scotland would fit into all of this. If England unitied with France, the Union might not be possible. On the other hand, Sctoland was an old friend to France, maybe they could have a Union of their own. A Union of all four seems a bit scetchy, but it shouldn't be impossible...
Has no one got anything more to say here? There hasn't been any real sort of conclusion on how things are to look. Has the discussion migrated? If so, to where?
Originally posted by Archaalen
I wonder how Scotland would fit into all of this. If England unitied with France, the Union might not be possible. On the other hand, Sctoland was an old friend to France, maybe they could have a Union of their own. A Union of all four seems a bit scetchy, but it shouldn't be impossible...
Who is the 4th?
Ireland?
How about a Scotland Ireland Union? To counter the threat of a Uber-England/France. Religion might be a problem after those reformists show up.
There is some precedence for this the Bruce trying to ally/ get the Irish to join his rebellion. Or possibly even trying to become King (Ruler) of Ireland as well.
Scots settling for centuries before the EU time frame in Ireland.
Its just an idea, and no Im no Britsh Isles History scholar so this maybe totally wacked out.
Wales is the fourth. They were a part of the actual Union that occured, weren't they? But I don't know about the Scots and the Irish. Was that only something they put in Braveheart, or were the Irish really that friendly with the Scots? (that movie got plenty wrong. Don't get me started...) I like your thinking, however. Wales and perhaps Brittany could want in on such a Union, especially since they all have common foes (Brittany could be difficult, though. They hated France, the good friend of the Irish and Scotch, and seem to get a bit chummy with England in the beginning of the game (vassals w/ good relations).
Scots-Irish
The Scots are descendants of the Irish, the line of Scottish King comes from the a part of the kingdom of Ulster that was banished to the Northern Isles, they setup a kingdom in the 6th-7th centuries and interbreed with the native Picts. That is why both countries traditionally speak Gaelic rather than the softer Celtic dialect of Wales and Brittany.
So it is possible that those ancient links which were remembered by both peoples could be reforged, though it would have to be a union of equals than an annexation or vassalage.
Interesting aside: The word Scot is actually a latin would used to describe the inhabitants of Ireland. The surname came from this so 'Brian Scot' meant 'Brian of Irish ethnicity' So the Scots are just lost Irishmen.
The Scots are descendants of the Irish, the line of Scottish King comes from the a part of the kingdom of Ulster that was banished to the Northern Isles, they setup a kingdom in the 6th-7th centuries and interbreed with the native Picts. That is why both countries traditionally speak Gaelic rather than the softer Celtic dialect of Wales and Brittany.
So it is possible that those ancient links which were remembered by both peoples could be reforged, though it would have to be a union of equals than an annexation or vassalage.
Interesting aside: The word Scot is actually a latin would used to describe the inhabitants of Ireland. The surname came from this so 'Brian Scot' meant 'Brian of Irish ethnicity' So the Scots are just lost Irishmen.
No not from the movie. I loved the movie for its entertainment value (and that REALLY HOT French princess) but the info about the Bruce came from the BBC webpage, I think, or maybe another one about The Kings of the British Isles. So there is some precedence.
England gobbles France, Scots and Irish start crapping there pants, Scots and Irish decide they better get together and fight as one to protect themselves!
Wales and Brittany could get into this action as well as Skenderbeu suggested but my interest in English/ Scotch/ Irish rulers has just been kindled and Im no expert.
Heres that link for Robert the Bruce and how he invaded Ireland AFTER Banockburn because he was still not fully in charge of Scotland.
It said something about the kinship of him to one of the leading Irish Lords via a maternal grandmother.
Anyway check it out:
Robert the Bruce-Short History at BBC.
It said something about the kinship of him to one of the leading Irish Lords via a maternal grandmother.
Anyway check it out:
Robert the Bruce-Short History at BBC.