-
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.
This is not meant to reflect relations between Dauphin and other French nobles but the fact that Crown will go to England. I don't think Burgundy should be (was?) happy with this, same for others.Toio said:
Netherlands to England if Philip and Mary have a son!
I was hunting around the net looking for information on the Pragmatic Sanction of 1547 where Charles V withdrew the Netherlands from the HRE and made them 1 indivisible entity for inheritance purposes and stumbled across Felipe II's plans for his lands if he had a son by Mary I of England. He intended to leave Spain, Italy and the Americas to his son Carlos, by his first marriage while a son by Mary would received the Netherlands, Franche-Comte and England. I'm not familiar how AGCEEP attempts to model Mary's attempted counter-reformation, but I think it would be fascinating to see how things could have played out if Carlos had lived and Mary had lived long enough to have a son. It would have strengthened Spain's position immensely to be rid of the Netherlands simply because they were so far away and difficult to support. A more compact Spain with just Iberia, Italy and the Americas would be quite a bit more viable. An England owning the Netherlands would be very interesting to play I think as it would be far more able to move troops there either to suppress the locals or to defend them against France. Be interesting as well to see how the whole religion thing would play out. Probably have a version of the Elizabethan Religious Settlement to let the player decide how he'd want to do it, although I do think that it's pretty unlikely that any son of Felipe and Mary would turn Protestant. But he could well be quite a bit more tolerant of Protestantism in general, I suppose. Let's call him Ferdinand and make him king in 1573 when Mary dies...
Could be a real pain in the butt considering how many of the Dutch revolt events and/or conversions could have happened before 1573. Plus I'd have to play Spain and England through this period to get a feel for how things work.
Hmm, maybe an alt-England if I get the time to fill it out some more.
I was hunting around the net looking for information on the Pragmatic Sanction of 1547 where Charles V withdrew the Netherlands from the HRE and made them 1 indivisible entity for inheritance purposes and stumbled across Felipe II's plans for his lands if he had a son by Mary I of England. He intended to leave Spain, Italy and the Americas to his son Carlos, by his first marriage while a son by Mary would received the Netherlands, Franche-Comte and England. I'm not familiar how AGCEEP attempts to model Mary's attempted counter-reformation, but I think it would be fascinating to see how things could have played out if Carlos had lived and Mary had lived long enough to have a son. It would have strengthened Spain's position immensely to be rid of the Netherlands simply because they were so far away and difficult to support. A more compact Spain with just Iberia, Italy and the Americas would be quite a bit more viable. An England owning the Netherlands would be very interesting to play I think as it would be far more able to move troops there either to suppress the locals or to defend them against France. Be interesting as well to see how the whole religion thing would play out. Probably have a version of the Elizabethan Religious Settlement to let the player decide how he'd want to do it, although I do think that it's pretty unlikely that any son of Felipe and Mary would turn Protestant. But he could well be quite a bit more tolerant of Protestantism in general, I suppose. Let's call him Ferdinand and make him king in 1573 when Mary dies...
Could be a real pain in the butt considering how many of the Dutch revolt events and/or conversions could have happened before 1573. Plus I'd have to play Spain and England through this period to get a feel for how things work.
Hmm, maybe an alt-England if I get the time to fill it out some more.
Last edited:
Ferdinand Tudor? No, thanks.
Let's go with Stephen. Come on. We all want a Stephen II, and there's no reason she wouldn't have had a child by that name. Besides, it's always the obscure ones who survive childhood to become great (or not so great) kings.
Another interesting thing about all this would be the ability to have some sort of Protestant/Catholic civil war within Stephen's domains (The Anarchy, perhaps), the end result being (unless the Catholics win, which would be the fantasy/B option) the seperation of the two realms. England would remain Catholic under Stephen, and the Netherlands would adopt the ideas of the Reformation and perhaps go into league with the Protestant north German states.
Of course, by event the player would be able to choose whether to carry on playing as England, or to declare an independent republic in the Netherlands, and play as them. (event wise, think Hussites/Romanists...)
Now that would be cool!
To top it off, we'd need a new CoA (and maybe flag) for Habsburg-Tudor England
Let's go with Stephen. Come on. We all want a Stephen II, and there's no reason she wouldn't have had a child by that name. Besides, it's always the obscure ones who survive childhood to become great (or not so great) kings.
Another interesting thing about all this would be the ability to have some sort of Protestant/Catholic civil war within Stephen's domains (The Anarchy, perhaps
), the end result being (unless the Catholics win, which would be the fantasy/B option) the seperation of the two realms. England would remain Catholic under Stephen, and the Netherlands would adopt the ideas of the Reformation and perhaps go into league with the Protestant north German states.Of course, by event the player would be able to choose whether to carry on playing as England, or to declare an independent republic in the Netherlands, and play as them.
(event wise, think Hussites/Romanists...)Now that would be cool!
To top it off, we'd need a new CoA (and maybe flag) for Habsburg-Tudor England
mandead said:Ferdinand Tudor? No, thanks.
Let's go with Stephen. Come on. We all want a Stephen II, and there's no reason she wouldn't have had a child by that name. Besides, it's always the obscure ones who survive childhood to become great (or not so great) kings.
Another interesting thing about all this would be the ability to have some sort of Protestant/Catholic civil war within Stephen's domains (The Anarchy, perhaps
Of course, by event the player would be able to choose whether to carry on playing as England, or to declare an independent republic in the Netherlands, and play as them.
Now that would be cool!
To top it off, we'd need a new CoA (and maybe flag) for Habsburg-Tudor England
Stephen??? I figured that they'd probably use a name from Felipe's forebears, being the patriarchal type that he was, but they might have been smart enough to downplay the Spanish connection and use a name from English history that was shared between them. I'd prefer to avoid any confusion with real English kings of that century which would rule out Henry and Edward. John is really tempting because Felipe was actually a descendant of John of Gaunt through his Portugese mother. So how about John II? There's not an Esteban anywhere in Felipe's ancestors, but plenty of Juan/Joans (Catalan spelling).
I hadn't really thought about a full-fledged Catholic-Protestant civil war in England itself, but it wouldn't be all that unlikely would it? Especially if John maintained his parent's fanatical Catholicism. I can easily see a split between the Netherlands and England where they each go their own ways. We should probably have the next couple of monarchs each have a chance to come to some sort of settlement.
To keep things simple I like to use the same ratings and dates as the existing monarchs and I just ignore any changes of dynasty.
Tentative monarch list could look like this:
John II 1603 5-5-5 rating
Arthur II 1625
Arthur III 1660
John III 1685
Edward VII 1688
Mary II 1702
John IV 1714
Arthur IV 1727
Edward VIII 1760
John V 1820
If you want to play some more I'll start a new thread so we don't bother the more serious modders
I'm happy to take ideas, code, whatever! I'm perfectly happy to share my sandbox.PS What is it about you people and flags? I guess I'm just too uncool, but I don't see what the big deal is. Aside from that would John II Tudor really change the English flag or arms to reflect his Spanish heritage?
Well, given that
- Felipe was not really attracted to his wife and left England soon
- she had two false pregnancies / miscarriages and
- died of ovarian cancer
I don't find it very plausible the two could have had children.
- Felipe was not really attracted to his wife and left England soon
- she had two false pregnancies / miscarriages and
- died of ovarian cancer
I don't find it very plausible the two could have had children.
If we're going to do this, we should do it properly.
That's to say, I'm quite happy to do a proper monarch list. Generally speaking, we'll have poor monarchs (stats wise), but perhaps one really good one - a sort of Anglo-Spanish Charles Quint figure. He could calm the situation during most of his reign, but after his death, things explode into open war and thousands are burnt. England is of course mostly protestant at this point, so the Catholic tyranny would have to be massive.
As for King John, I like that. It's a good compromise. We have to keep the names John and Stephen for shit kings.
As for kings, I'll do unique stats for each. We'll have one who dies of smallpox after like a fortnight. Bit of flavour, obviously. Namewise, I'd go with a Charles or two (English and Spanish name you see; Carlos), a James. There was a James or two of Aragon, IIRC. A Stephen. Maybe one Ferdinand. He can be the "foreigner" and the one who manages to finally lose control of the Netherlands. Then he can be deposed and replaces with a "pure" Tudor relative or something.
That's to say, I'm quite happy to do a proper monarch list. Generally speaking, we'll have poor monarchs (stats wise), but perhaps one really good one - a sort of Anglo-Spanish Charles Quint figure. He could calm the situation during most of his reign, but after his death, things explode into open war and thousands are burnt. England is of course mostly protestant at this point, so the Catholic tyranny would have to be massive.
As for King John, I like that. It's a good compromise. We have to keep the names John and Stephen for shit kings.
As for kings, I'll do unique stats for each. We'll have one who dies of smallpox after like a fortnight. Bit of flavour, obviously. Namewise, I'd go with a Charles or two (English and Spanish name you see; Carlos), a James. There was a James or two of Aragon, IIRC. A Stephen. Maybe one Ferdinand. He can be the "foreigner" and the one who manages to finally lose control of the Netherlands. Then he can be deposed and replaces with a "pure" Tudor relative or something.
Todor said:Well, given that
- Felipe was not really attracted to his wife and left England soon
- she had two false pregnancies / miscarriages and
- died of ovarian cancer
I don't find it very plausible the two could have had children.
Sheesh! It's not meant to be plausible, just fun! A what-if. That said it should be plausible after the weird starting condition.
mandead said:If we're going to do this, we should do it properly.
That's to say, I'm quite happy to do a proper monarch list. Generally speaking, we'll have poor monarchs (stats wise), but perhaps one really good one - a sort of Anglo-Spanish Charles Quint figure. He could calm the situation during most of his reign, but after his death, things explode into open war and thousands are burnt. England is of course mostly protestant at this point, so the Catholic tyranny would have to be massive.
As for King John, I like that. It's a good compromise. We have to keep the names John and Stephen for shit kings.
As for kings, I'll do unique stats for each. We'll have one who dies of smallpox after like a fortnight. Bit of flavour, obviously. Namewise, I'd go with a Charles or two (English and Spanish name you see; Carlos), a James. There was a James or two of Aragon, IIRC. A Stephen. Maybe one Ferdinand. He can be the "foreigner" and the one who manages to finally lose control of the Netherlands. Then he can be deposed and replaces with a "pure" Tudor relative or something.
I tend to reuse stats and dates of monarchs to avoid charges of favoritism. And normally you'll get a good range of good and mediocre monarchs over the long run. Gotta have an Arthur or two in there to appeal to the English sense of history. Not to mention that Arthur was Henry VIII's older brother so it's even plausible. I suppose we could go with a Charles or two, but I still don't like Stephen because there aren't any in Spanish history. James is viable, but I'd prefer to avoid it because of the confusion issue. I do kinda like the idea Ferdinand being the doofus who loses the Netherlands, foreshadowed by his parents not being smart enough to use traditional English names of one sort or another. The Tudors will never use Henry again because of Henry VIII's break with the Pope.
Can you imagine Shakespeare trying to salvage John Lackland's reputation in his plays? Denigrating Richard I and Robin Hood as part of the Tudor propaganda machine? I smirk just thinking about it!
I'll go ahead and start a new thread and you can put your monarch list there whenever you get it done.
Okay doke, mate. I still like the idea of a King Stephen, though. They don't all have to have Habsburg roots do they? Mary was English afterall...
YodaMaster said:
I thought BUR would be happy considering that charles (accussed) murdered Phillip's (BUR) father.
BUR then allied with ENG against DAU
So at least BUR would be favourable with ENG
............................
besides, was'nt the dule of Orleans , charles "real" father ??
Not necessarily, like Arthur, but it would be the smart thing to do in this situation.mandead said:
What colonies in 1530?
While I rather like this sequence it seems a bit odd to have the French over-populate (non-existent) colonies this early in the game. Is it simply best to delete option A or to rework it into a later event?
While I rather like this sequence it seems a bit odd to have the French over-populate (non-existent) colonies this early in the game. Is it simply best to delete option A or to rework it into a later event?
Code:
#(1525-1530) French Colonists
event = {
id = 21085
trigger = {
event = 1000062
owned = { province = 414 data = -1 }
owned = { province = 415 data = -1 }
owned = { province = 416 data = -1 }
owned = { province = 234 data = -1 }
}
random = no
country = ENG
name = "EVENTNAME21085" #French Colonists
desc = "EVENTHIST21085"
#-#With the conquest of France, England had French who wished to move to new areas. There are three options available that they could travel to: emigrate to our far-flung colonies, resettle in Brittany, or colonize Leinster.
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1525 }
offset = 1000
deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 1530 }
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME21085A" #Let Them Go to our Colonies
command = { type = domestic which = centralization value = -1 }
command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = 1 }
command = { type = sleepevent which = 21088 } #ENG: The Armor Resettlement
command = { type = sleepevent which = 21089 } #ENG: The Morbihan Resettlement
command = { type = sleepevent which = 21090 } #ENG: The Bretagne Resettlement
command = { type = sleepevent which = 21091 } #ENG: The Leinster Plantation
}
action_b = {
name = "ACTIONNAME21085B" #Let Them Resettle in Brittany
command = { type = domestic which = centralization value = 1 }
command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = -1 }
command = { type = sleepevent which = 21086 } #ENG: French Colonists Overseas
command = { type = sleepevent which = 21087 } #ENG: French Colonists Overseas
command = { type = sleepevent which = 21091 } #ENG: The Leinster Plantation
}
action_c = {
name = "ACTIONNAME21085C" #Let Them Resettle in Leinster
command = { type = domestic which = centralization value = 1 }
command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = -1 }
command = { type = sleepevent which = 21086 } #ENG: French Colonists Overseas
command = { type = sleepevent which = 21087 } #ENG: French Colonists Overseas
command = { type = sleepevent which = 21088 } #ENG: The Armor Resettlement
command = { type = sleepevent which = 21089 } #ENG: The Morbihan Resettlement
command = { type = sleepevent which = 21090 } #ENG: The Bretagne Resettlement
}
}
#(1531-1534) French Colonists Overseas
event = {
id = 21086
trigger = { event = 21085 }
random = no
country = ENG
name = "EVENTNAME21086" #French Colonists Overseas
desc = "EVENTHIST21086"
#-#With permission to travel to the colonies, some French settlers left France. Sometimes they would gather in a single colony and dominate culturally and religiously.
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1531 }
offset = 500
deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 1534 }
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME21086A" #The French Have Taken Over One of Our Colonies
command = { type = population which = -4 value = 500 }
command = { type = provinceculture which = -3 value = french }
command = { type = provincereligion which = -3 value = catholic }
}
}
#(1535-1539) French Colonists Overseas
event = {
id = 21087
trigger = { event = 21085 }
random = no
country = ENG
name = "EVENTNAME21086" #French Colonists Overseas
desc = "EVENTHIST21086"
#-#With permission to travel to the colonies, some French settlers left France. Sometimes they would gather in a single colony and dominate culturally and religiously.
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1535 }
offset = 500
deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 1539 }
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME21086A" #The French Have Taken Over One of Our Colonies
command = { type = population which = -4 value = 1000 }
command = { type = provinceculture which = -3 value = french }
command = { type = provincereligion which = -3 value = catholic }
}
}
I'll get on it.mandead said:
As for Bordic's core changes for the inheritance of Brittany sequence, the cores were added later because The Treaty of Verger simply implied a vassalage. Brittany itself should still exist, and unless there was a concern over early annexation, the question still reamins as to why we would want BRI and FRA at odds at this juncture of the game?
Surrendering Calais and Gascogne seems a stretch on many accounts. As for Calais specifically, surrendering claims to Guyenne, Normandy and the Crown of France leaves the lowlands and I don't see why Calais would be given up given the enormous efforts by ENG to maintain the foothold and the strategic and ecomomic advantages afforded.mandead said:
Agreed.szmik said:
Btw, Calais ate up almost half of the King's revenue. Unfortunately, the only way we have with EU2 to reflect the cost of garrisoning a province is to take it out of the basetax...
Parliament would periodically grant the King the customs revenue from the Wool trade and Wool alone. This should not be the equivalent of jacking up the tax base for Calais, IMO, particularly when, as stated, the garrisoning of Calais was extremely expensive.
I don't think it's a good idea to introduce the precedent to change culture simply because of a change of provincial ownership.szmik said:
I think I'll have to look at this more closely to see what you're talking about.Toio said:
I believe Dauphine was so-named on behalf of the political party the Dauphin headed subsequent to the massacre at Paris.mandead said:
If people would read through the bible that is this thread (impossible I know), they would realize that many of their off-the-cuff ideas have already been debated. Why would the English capital move to Paris? Troyes stipulated two seperate realms...anything else would be fantasy wouldn't it?mandead said:
I'll have to play the recent version to see what you're talking about. Either that or you could be more specific.Toio said:
Provinces in FRA are ceded from ENG back to FRA based on FRA controlership, I think.
I don't think ENNG should have profitted much from a deal like this. FRA was is a terrible shape. 500 is probably too much.vicotnik said:
The Dauphin's mother had about zero credibility once Troyes was signed. The ENG and BUR used her support when they needed it. She means little if anything to the events past Troyes. Not everyone felt the Dauphin was a bastard. In fact the vast majority did not feel so, and as a result you had a mass exodus from ENG occupied territories to Charles's territories in FRA.Toio said:
The "Fantasy" begins already with the British beeing successfull.
Although the two Kingdoms would not be merged imeadiatly it would be absurd to think the English Kings would try to preserve the status quo with the personalunion remaining the only link between the two England and France. A more realistic perspective would be some kind of event series comparable to the creation of the UK in OTL or the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. As a result the Anglo-French monarch might have considered a change of his Empire's capital.
@ribbon
the sequence for an early "new" FRA starts with event 1000015, this triggers 1000016 and then 1000067, 1000067 retriggers 1000016
this sequence to me is started by ENG failing to take ile de france.
since this date is non-historical (but plausible) ie 1422, for charles to be made king, then I suggest
1.
taht the coronation event of 1422 have further triggers of:
AND = {
relation with BUR, BOU, orleans and provence must be +150
2. change the start day by adjusting these day by using 21st, 22nd, 23rd etc
my reasoning is that DAU (charles) was weak in 1422 and Joan propped up Charles status with her victories, since he was weak early (1422), why would orleans, provence, BOU or BUR support him to become KING, they would prefer someone else
................................
on the troyes event
why does 100007 has BUR hate DAU and like ENG
&
100006 has ENG hate BUR and DAU , should some of these negatives be positives?
the sequence for an early "new" FRA starts with event 1000015, this triggers 1000016 and then 1000067, 1000067 retriggers 1000016
this sequence to me is started by ENG failing to take ile de france.
since this date is non-historical (but plausible) ie 1422, for charles to be made king, then I suggest
1.
taht the coronation event of 1422 have further triggers of:
AND = {
relation with BUR, BOU, orleans and provence must be +150
2. change the start day by adjusting these day by using 21st, 22nd, 23rd etc
my reasoning is that DAU (charles) was weak in 1422 and Joan propped up Charles status with her victories, since he was weak early (1422), why would orleans, provence, BOU or BUR support him to become KING, they would prefer someone else
................................
on the troyes event
why does 100007 has BUR hate DAU and like ENG
&
100006 has ENG hate BUR and DAU , should some of these negatives be positives?
IIRC, the problem here is Brittany being part of Kingdom of France but without any core for France if Brittany disappears at the "wrong" time, for example diplo-annexed by Spain or England. A better solution than bugfix included in 1.51?ribbon22 said:
What is to be done with submission #668, then?ribbon22 said:
Solution for importance of Calais in event(s) to increase English treasury and model corresponding income?
I wouldn't really say that. In most games I'd say it's modeled by England simply losing Calais very quickly. This doesn't matter much since the province is pretty crappy for England anyway, and this is just wrong on all levels. If England wants to keep it they have to spend money defending it, and this is certainly modeled in a way. The alternative would be to remove the French core for a while and give Calais a size 4 fortress and the same tax value it has now or something. This would make capturing it impossible without cannons, but it is probably not such a good idea.ribbon22 said:
For England to maintain the army required to defend Calais is already expensive. A high tax value would represent the value of Calais to the crown and also give the English some reason to fight for it.
But this happened in real life though. The city itself (which is only one part of the province) was repopulated with English citizens, so the culture of the city would be anglosaxon in game terms. Using the new map it seems like Calais represents the city so for that map the culture probably should be anglosaxon, for the current map the consistent way of handling it would be to keep it French.
Absurd? It took almost 150 years to merge the two kingdoms of ENG and SCO -- and they were neighbours with cultures, laws, language and customs which were relatively similar in comparison to those of ENG and FRA. Second, I'm afraid government and society was just simply not advanced enough at this stage of world history to maintain a merged version of these two major european powers. Lastly, every English attempt for ~ 350 years before gamestart to keep ENG's possessions on the other side of the channel failed without variance.ar-Pharazon said:
This sequence has a .05 probability of occuring to begin with, because it represents the Dauphin's choice at Montereau to spare Duke John the Fearless. This sequence is designed to impart the entirety of FRA to the Dauphin upon King Charles VI's death...we could change it by having DAU inherit FRA as soon as the Treaty/Alliance at Montereau is sealed between the Dauphin and Duke John, and then changing teh country from DAU to FRA. Sound good?Toio said:
Claiming the Crown of France pisses many people off, including Duke John of Burgundy. Remember that after ENG claims the Crown of France, BUR then gets an event to either choose to support ENG or not, and so if they support them, then they get a relation boost -- if BUR chooses not to support ENG, then the relations between ENG and BUR suffer accordingly.Toio said:
Was the bugfix only core reassignment? Or were there more changes involved?Yoda said:
It doesn't make historical sense. The King of ENG wouldn't give up the Gascogne or Calais pale.Yoda said:
Wasn't the date for core removal of Calais pulled backward in order to facilitate the removal of Calais from ENG's interest once ENG lost Calais? My position is that that that should be enough.
Anothe roption though, but I'm not fond of it, would be to remove the cores from FRA and include something or other regarding such an agreement in the event description. For exmaple, a 50 year mortgage or something. Then a new event that requires ENG to hand them back to FRA with the B choice reneging. Either way, FRA would get the cores back 50 years later.
We'll have to see I guess.Yoda said:
I don't think you can upgrade a fort past your tech level. As for the French core idea, I would think that that would be best if something must be done about Calais in the event of H. V of ENG signing a lasting peace with C. VI of FRA.vicotnik said:
I would prefer to see teh results of a series of tests before this is implemented. I am doubtful that a reasonable moderate increase to the tax value will significantly improve ENG's ability to defend or recapture Calais.vicotnik said:
What needs to be demonstrated is that the gameplay effects of culture are historically warranted.vicotnik said: