AGC & EEP: Fantasy German Unification

[Twoflower]

In your sequence it would be IMHO a bit odd to see a stronger HRE give up lands that the historic weaker one did. But I could have misread that part of your post.

The HRE would not "give up" these lands, it would just not be able to extend the reforms to them initially; as I have said, there should be a possibility to integrate these territories (and gain cores) in later events. While my main reason to do it like this is that it is IMO good to power down the event as much as possible and more importantly that only gaining the non-electoral and non-archducal lands in the beginning and having to work more in order to get these as well will make for a more challenging and interesting game, it is also historically (or more correctly, by the logic within the ahistorical sequence) justified: the electors and archdukes had extensive regalia, i.e. king-like powers, within their holdings which would have been limited by the introduction of effective Imperial institutions, thus making the reforms apply to their possessions could not be on the agenda initially (any effective reform would have violated their regalia) and could only be done as a second step (by which the regalia would be abolished). It is not unrealistic that implementing massive reforms to Imperial laws and institutions and abolishing the regalia (which would have required renouncing the Golden Bull and the Privilegium Maius!) can, even by a powerful Emperor, not be done at once.

The only sequence quibble I could possibly have is having the reformed HRE with a centralisation of "0". IMO the HRE is the poster child for 0 centralisation states in its' historic form! This sequence should give it at the very least a 1 if not a 2 since it actually establishes some kind of central control over the non centralised "country". An event that is to increase central authority should at least in my eyes add to centralisation just a bit, but you could be reflecting that the HRE is going from a -1 centralisation to a 0.....

If the historical HRE had "centralization 0", it would be an EU2 state in 1419; I think that the fact that we have the HRE split up in several independent states implies that we are assuming a "negative centralization" of the HRE that would be "increased to 0" by the unification. Centralizing the HRE by reforms would be a long-term process, and the event still happens in the beginning stage, hence the resulting new unified state should not be more centralized than any other EU2 country (and we do have countries with centralization 0).

 

[unmerged(36449)]

The HRE would not "give up" these lands, it would just not be able to extend the reforms to them initially; as I have said, there should be a possibility to integrate these territories (and gain cores) in later events. While my main reason to do it like this is that it is IMO good to power down the event as much as possible and more importantly that only gaining the non-electoral and non-archducal lands in the beginning and having to work more in order to get these as well will make for a more challenging and interesting game, it is also historically (or more correctly, by the logic within the ahistorical sequence) justified: the electors and archdukes had extensive regalia, i.e. king-like powers, within their holdings which would have been limited by the introduction of effective Imperial institutions, thus making the reforms apply to their possessions could not be on the agenda initially (any effective reform would have violated their regalia) and could only be done as a second step (by which the regalia would be abolished). It is not unrealistic that implementing massive reforms to Imperial laws and institutions and abolishing the regalia (which would have required renouncing the Golden Bull and the Privilegium Maius!) can, even by a powerful Emperor, not be done at once.

If the historical HRE had "centralization 0", it would be an EU2 state in 1419; I think that the fact that we have the HRE split up in several independent states implies that we are assuming a "negative centralization" of the HRE that would be "increased to 0" by the unification. Centralizing the HRE by reforms would be a long-term process, and the event still happens in the beginning stage, hence the resulting new unified state should not be more centralized than any other EU2 country (and we do have countries with centralization 0).

yeah I thought you may have been going with the -1 to 0.....

Just a comment on the regalia... I would think that it may be possible to do with the HRE what was done by Prussia to form Germany. I always got the impression that there was a bit of the HRE influence in second reich. Saxony, Bavaria etc did not have to give up anything but an independent foreign policy. Bavaria had its' own army, and even air corps, and still minted money. So it may be possible to do the same kind of thing just a lot earlier.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Historically they had no legal means of raising an army..... maybe a bodyguard for the ruling count or duke (or Prinz, Furst, Rheingraf what have you), but unless they were a Margrave or Pfalzgraf they were SOL on having a real army.


Margraves and palatines were the only ones besides the Emperor that could have a standing force bigger then a basketball team. Palatines also have an advantage, a rather major one over Margraves: They are empowered to mint money.

Hesse-Darmstadt, which was a landgravate unless I'm mistaken, managed to raise and army and fight a quick war with Hesse-Kassel over the sucession to Marburg in 1605. Wurtemburg (admittedly a margravate) maintained a decent
sized army through most of the EUII era. The bishopric of Munster managed to send armies to fight independently on several occasions. In 1648 Hesse-Kassel had more garrisons in Germany than any German power.

There are plenty of cases of small states that were able to maintain amries for at least short periods of time. And an ahistorically strong Oldenburg (to pick a singularly weak state) could certainly appeal to the Emperor to obtain Palatine status. Maybe force the smaller states to go through another set of hoops, but it should be possible for them to do the job.

The countries with best shot at being KoG should be PFA, HAB (they are German), Meissen/Saxony, BRA, BAY (after they get Ansbach and by inference the upper palatinate without it they still could but it would be a bit harder), and maybe one other. I am trying to remember if there is a margravate in lower Saxony that was part of what is HAN in the game but my memory is coming up short.

Wasn't Brunswick-Luneburg a margrate and then a duchy?

This leaves you with a few choices and a smaller potential monarch file. The leader file is even easier: The KoG should get ALL German leaders, even the crappy ones. It's not like the military caste is going to have much of a choice on whose banner to follow.

Given the immense number of German leaders who served outside Germany in real life, I don't think this assertion really holds up.

yup thats the guy... Karl VII. Wonder what would have happened if he had lived another 10 years or so? Could he have made Bohemia hereditary... all sorts of question that can't be answered.

Given that he was kicked out of Bohemia by the Austrians in his own lifetime (1743) it seems unlikely But I guess you meant what would have happened if he had actually WON the war . Much like Frederick V (another king who was chased out of Prague) it makes for interesting speculation.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Hesse-Darmstadt, which was a landgravate unless I'm mistaken, managed to raise and army and fight a quick war with Hesse-Kassel over the sucession to Marburg in 1605. Wurtemburg (admittedly a margravate) maintained a decent
sized army through most of the EUII era. The bishopric of Munster managed to send armies to fight independently on several occasions. In 1648 Hesse-Kassel had more garrisons in Germany than any German power.

There are plenty of cases of small states that were able to maintain amries for at least short periods of time. And an ahistorically strong Oldenburg (to pick a singularly weak state) could certainly appeal to the Emperor to obtain Palatine status. Maybe force the smaller states to go through another set of hoops, but it should be possible for them to do the job.


Wasn't Brunswick-Luneburg a margrate and then a duchy?


Given the immense number of German leaders who served outside Germany in real life, I don't think this assertion really holds up.



Given that he was kicked out of Bohemia by the Austrians in his own lifetime (1743) it seems unlikely But I guess you meant what would have happened if he had actually WON the war . Much like Frederick V (another king who was chased out of Prague) it makes for interesting speculation.

not as skilled with the formatting as you are so forgive me if this seems a bit jumbled.

One of the titles of the ruler of Hesse-Darmstadt was Pfalzgraf bei rhein since they had a possession in the palatinate. And although they were not THE count palatine they were still a count palatine and therefore could raise troops.

And what I meant on the leader file was the ones that served in Germany with German states. I thought that would be picked up by inference but I was apparently mistaken.

Bishops raising troops is not considered since they are not up for becoming "king" so to speak. And many of them also had palatine status. I know in England one of the north midlands bishoprics was also a palatine and for the life of me I can not remember the name of the frelling city! They did maintain seperate courts etc into the 1970's. I think it may have been Durham, but don't quote me on that.

For practical purposes there are only a few dynasties that could have a shot of actually unifying Germany in the form of either a truly centralised HRE or a modern nation state. And although it would be nice to give the maximum amount of leeway for the gaming aspects... respectfully I submit that there are some points beyond credulity breaks down.

And having Berg unite Germany would be one of those instances. The player will just have to satisfy themselves with conquering all the territory of Germany and style himself "king".

I use Berg as a non specific example, just needed a name and Berg is short to type.

There are just a few powerhouse families in the empire that could have not only the armed manpower to make it feasible, but also the political cache and lineage to make such a thing practical.

Plus with a smaller pool of potentials the events are easier to write....

 

[unmerged(6159)]

And what I meant on the leader file was the ones that served in Germany with German states. I thought that would be picked up by inference but I was apparently mistaken.

No that is what I had assumed. But surely one of the reasons that so many German leaders served in Germany was the large number of potential employers. Reduce all those employers to one, and are all of them really going to stay.
To put the discussion in different terms I'd argue that the 'German' leader file overall should be comparable to the French, not much better and not much worse. They don't need to have dozens of leaders at a time, and they don't need all of the good ones that tend to appear simultaneously.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

No that is what I had assumed. But surely one of the reasons that so many German leaders served in Germany was the large number of potential employers. Reduce all those employers to one, and are all of them really going to stay.
To put the discussion in different terms I'd argue that the 'German' leader file overall should be comparable to the French, not much better and not much worse. They don't need to have dozens of leaders at a time, and they don't need all of the good ones that tend to appear simultaneously.

I would submit that there would be a powerful inducement for them TO serve in Germany. Most of them were of noble birth with lands and titles within the Empire. And taking up arms against the emperor is the single best way to see those go bye bye. And serving in a foreign army carries the risk that you will be called to do so.

As to the number of good to great leaders that come in bunchs... I would presume that some of them are going to be tied to revolter states during the thirty years war. Not that, that will solve all of the problem but hey *shrugs* it's not like Sweden or France don't have a couple of time frames that they are leader heavy in and some of them in that bunch are some pretty hot stuff...

Should stand to reason that Germany would have a period or two as well and probably use them the same way that the previous mentioned nations did: Expansion.

 

[Norrefeldt]

No that is what I had assumed. But surely one of the reasons that so many German leaders served in Germany was the large number of potential employers. Reduce all those employers to one, and are all of them really going to stay.
To put the discussion in different terms I'd argue that the 'German' leader file overall should be comparable to the French, not much better and not much worse. They don't need to have dozens of leaders at a time, and they don't need all of the good ones that tend to appear simultaneously.

I agree, and the comparison with France is a good one. Adding all German leaders would be unbalancing. KoI don't get all Italian leaders. We can argue back and forth without but since it's ahistorical the arguements are hard to compare. Giving KoG a über-leader set is grossly unbalancing.
I think it would be reasonable if a peacefully creation of KoG would give more leaders than a brute force approach. But that remains to be seen.

 

[Classique]

I would submit that there would be a powerful inducement for them TO serve in Germany. Most of them were of noble birth with lands and titles within the Empire. And taking up arms against the emperor is the single best way to see those go bye bye. And serving in a foreign army carries the risk that you will be called to do so.

Wedgewood has a good description of military loyalty during the first half of the 17th century.

So far no state had evolved a system of conscription capable of keeping a national army fully trained. When it came to war a wise government at once hired a professional general. These professionals usually kept about them a small staff of officers expert in rapid recruiting and training. The armies thus raised without regard to race or religion were the outcasts of society or the surplus population of overcrowded districts. Switzerland and north Italy, for instance, where the land could never support the helahty and prolific race that it bred, produced better recruits than the German States, where the population question was less acute. The soldiers once enlisted were faithful only to their banners. The oath which they took was not to any personal leader or State but to the flag, and if the flag were captured in battle the soldiers were at liberty to follow it. Even loyalty to the flag was not always apparent, and it was usual for prisoners of war to enlist in the army of the victors whether their banner had been taken or not. Besides this, a soldier served only under contract; should he choose at the expiration of his time to try another army he was free to do so. Officers and men shifted from service to service without the least compunction and discussed the merits of each round the camp fires in the evening. The Emperor paid well, but it was considered 'a hard service, to lie out wet and dry'; the King of Poland paid even better but would not undertake to feed the army in winter; the Governess of the Netherlands made the wages sound tempting to those who did not know that she calculated a month at six to eight weeks; 'the best service is accounted the States because constant, and if they lose any joint or be made unserviceable they are during their life to have the same pay that they had when they were disabled.

-C.W. Wedgewood, "The Thirty Years War" page 87.

During the 30YW, some rulers in revolt against the Emperor had their lands confiscated, but many had few, if any, lands taken away even after years of fighting: John-Albert of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Amalia Elisabeth of Hessen-Kassel, Charles-Louis of the Pfalz, William of Baden-Durlach etc. Often they were pardoned and allowed to keep their lands after promising not to take up arms against the Emperor again.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

I agree, and the comparison with France is a good one. Adding all German leaders would be unbalancing. KoI don't get all Italian leaders. We can argue back and forth without but since it's ahistorical the arguements are hard to compare. Giving KoG a über-leader set is grossly unbalancing.
I think it would be reasonable if a peacefully creation of KoG would give more leaders than a brute force approach. But that remains to be seen.

see that is a fundimental difference in how I see the "game".

I don't care about balance, history and nations are inherently unbalanced and frankly sometimes not even remotely fair.

Imposing balance, on what was or should I say would be a major shift in the European "balance" of power during the time frames in question would be grossly distorting.

A unified Germany anytime before 1870 would by definition throw Europe off kileter. Suddenly a veritable super state blossoms in Middle Europe where before you have a bunch of squabbling fratricidal postage stamps of countries.

Trying to shackle it so that it was balanced for game play neuters it.

As to the leaders? The people are going to be born anyway. That is not a question. They are still going to have the aptitudes that they historically displayed, that is also not a question. But we now insert the question by attempting to balance this out (same goes for Italy); of what the heck are these ambitious, capable men DOING instead?

Frederick the Great is still going to BE Frederick the Great even if a Bavarian unites the empire, he is still going to have that fire in the belly to achieve some measure of greatness and bring glory to his house and family name.

By neutering Germany for game balance you send Freddie off to the happy farm where he does nothing, maybe raises tulips. Not likely as an outcome considering his personality and known history.

If anything a united Germany should see the worst of the leaders shuffled off into the ether unless they were extremely well connected politically. The reason is that the Imperial army is only going to be SO big, and there will be fewer commands available, so only the best guys are going to get the gig. Darwinian action, in action. Some of them may move into advisor posts in government which could eat up some of them and reduce the number but then you would have to infer how good they would be as a minister. In the above example I could see Frederick being one hot Prime minister!

If a united Germany means it sucks to be Poland or France... well history has shown that to be the case in actuality, so why should it not be the same in the game?

Now honestly, I can see a lot of heat coming from players saying that a united and non neutered Germany or Italy are eating them alive... but you know what? They SHOULD be. If that means that someone playing Denmark is getting smoked everytime he attempts his ambition of seizing a goodly hunk of Northern Germany, or that the Turks are getting smashed in the teeth in the Balkans (not likely but I needed something close to Italy and did not want to pick on France), that is really just a little to bad. And to be harsh for just a bit... they should instead of whining, jump on the respective nations as soon as it looks like they are close to unification and derail it.

Always when given a choice serve the historic potential of a nation and let the game balance find its' own level point. Only neutering as little as needed to keep the AI from going nuts. But even that I have mixed feelings on. History is a bunch of decisions made by men and woman under set variables. Change the variables, and the decisions are likely to be much different and hence the outcomes. The only constants would be the relative starting strengths of the various nations in the game metrics. And if the AI is really aggressive the smaller and weaker states are going to fall like dominoes and there really is not a lot that can be done about that.

In someways that may actually help the game in some key historic areas that it falls flat on currently. Like trying to replicate Napoleons conquests in the game, currently that is not really possible. But I am tangenting, sorry.

EU as I see it is about the history, and not so much about the "game" in the strictest mechanical sense. Yes a certain amount of plumbing has to be there for it to operate and be played in the style of a game, but that is all. So I am really not concerned with balancing the game as a game, but more in balancing the historic potential of the nation or region.

And some nations were just simply stronger then others and had greater potential then their neighbours. And a united KoI or HRE/Germany would be one of those nations.

Look how powerful France is currently in the game. Now ask yourself how powerful it would appear to YOU, in a history in which it remained a bunch of squabbling, fratricidal, postage stamps.

And now, imagine you are talking to a person involved in coding a game based upon that history of a non unified France and them only wanting to include the leaders that were born in only Orleans in their version of a fantasy French unification event.

Theres your paradigm of judgement.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Wedgewood has a good description of military loyalty during the first half of the 17th century.


-C.W. Wedgewood, "The Thirty Years War" page 87.

During the 30YW, some rulers in revolt against the Emperor had their lands confiscated, but many had few, if any, lands taken away even after years of fighting: John-Albert of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Amalia Elisabeth of Hessen-Kassel, Charles-Louis of the Pfalz, William of Baden-Durlach etc. Often they were pardoned and allowed to keep their lands after promising not to take up arms against the Emperor again.

that tends to reinforce my point. That is in a world with a relatively weak emperor. He still confiscated property, thus the inducement not to take up arms against him.

Make him the more powerful emperor that we are talking about in a unified HRE?

He does not have to be so forgiving. He does not have to worry that his son or other heir of his family will not be elected. He doesn't have to worry as much about the friends of the people that took up arms against him are going to lobby against his line in the next election if he does not return the property.

Plus, it would be unwise under feudal law. All states within the empire were immediate vassals OF the emperor or vassals of immediate vassals of the emperor. Thus all owed fealty to the empire and the emperor.

Now as I referred to in the othe post.. we have a given set of leader types that are going to be born (well technically there is no saying that they will be in a universe with a unified Germany earlier then historic but lets not go there). They do NOT all have to go into the military to seek their glory....

You could make use of some of them in "excellent minister for xxx months" events. Would Frederick the Great seek his glory in this world on the battlefield or as minister to the emperor, or both?

That will eat up some of them, but it also leaves you with the problem of the already established minister events. There could be some overlap, and the potential for a whole lot more good men in government then some people would like.

But these guys have to go somewhere. They are not going to sit back on the family estate and breed dogs considering their histories, they are going to want MORE.

so we need to find some jobs for these guys or they are going to be upto no end of mischief.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

In reading over the threads I see a lot of discussion of the mechanics of this and that and the balance etc... And that is good, don't get me wrong! But I think that everyone has lost track of a very important point by only looking at the nuts and bolts of a "game".

That leader file? Their not numbers...play along for an instant here... they are a numeric abstract of a real, live, breathing person that existed.

They actually DID what we are playing (and I know that you know that on one level but let it sink in a bit deeper). History is as much about the mechanics as it is about the personalities and personal foibles and shortcomings of the actors (used in the non theatrical sense) in history.

And some of the balance that you are trying to mechanically replicate was not from a purely mechanically replicatable source. Some of that balance came from the people involved in the for real decisions personalities.

When you make the decision to not use a historic leader in a unified nation that was historically not unified til much later; you are in effect relegating that person to obscurity. They may as well have never lived.

Yeah I know it is kind of a "soft" existential weirdness of an idea but it does not mean that it does not have some merit.

What are these men that made an impact on our common history of such import that we still know their names and places of birth hundreds of years after their deaths, going to be doing instead of what we know them for?

And to reiterate the French example. Not making use of all the leaders that are available (well the best of them anyway) for these unified nations would be as wrong as in a world in which France remained disunited; only making use of the leaders in Orleans for the ahistoric unified France fantasy event.

So using this hypothetical example of an alternate universe where France remained petty states and the fantasy event is unification... you don't have Napoleon, or the Rohans if you united the nation as Orleans, or Bourbanais.

Which is illogical from the known history in our universe. All men of France rallied to the banner of their King, regardless of what part of France they were born.

Why should Germany or Italy be any different?

 

[|AXiN|]

Because both have very strong mercenary traditions? Look at Switzerland - unified, patriotic, but most of their military types were mercenaries in other states. With this united Germany, there's no guarantee that any of these famous historical leaders will event be born - the old butterfly effect in action. And so that the work is easier, and that the German leader file actually loads some time this century, I'd suggest we cull it. Give them a number of leaders roughly similar to France/Austria, with similar numbers of crap and genius. Hell, give them some conquistadors and explorers - an alternative outlet for expansionism.

 

[Norrefeldt]

People are not predestined as military leaders, they become that if the circumstances are right. The last 50 years have seen comparably very few western European wars, and in many countries the armed forces no longer attract the most gifted people. Fewer wars means less demand for and less experienced leaders.
The game is illogical as it is, since a leader that was born in a certain place mostly serve his historical country, even if the home province belong to someone else. Trying to get a historically "true" representation is IMHO impossible. Allowing for a leader file on par with the most important neighbours is rather generous.

 

[|AXiN|]

Allowing for a leader file on par with the most important neighbours is rather generous.

This is true, however it's no coincidence that many states have good leaderfiles at around the same time - these were periods of great conflict. A BWB has no realy need of the TYW leaders, as it has probably already conquered the involved parties, but still gets them. When the OE chokes, it still gets all it's leaders. I'd suggest then that a fantasy unified Germany should probably be on par with it's neighbors - the Germans never seem to have lacked for military talent, especially not in times of need.

 

[Twoflower]

It would definitely be good and realistic to limit the German leader file. There is no particular reason why Prince Eugene would have served a Germany unified by, say, Saxony, and it's even quite unrealistic to have Tilly (who was a staunch catholic from Wallonia) serve a reformed or protestant Germany. Therefore the German leader file should be divided into several groups:

• there is a "basic" leader set for each possible founding country that is activated automatically upon creation of Germany. For the countries that already have big leader files (Austria, Brandenburg-Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony and Hanover) this set would be almost identical to their original leader file, with the exclusion of some relatively unimportant "filler" leaders, the "religious" leaders and, in the case of Austria, leaders attached to their Bohemian and Hungarian crowns. The countries that do not have leader file or just few leaders might get some leaders from the militarily powerful countries they neigboured (i.e. Pomerania could get some of the Prussian leaders and Oldenburg some of Hanover's), though this might be disputable.
• if a country that has historical leaders has voluntarily joined a Germany created by reform, or under special circumstances with the force-majeur way, Germany gets the German-born leaders of this country's basic set (i.e. not Prince Eugene or Montecuccoli)
• there are sets of "Catholic" and "Protestant" leaders (generally, with a few exceptions, the leaders that fought on the respective sides in the Schmalkaldic War and the Thirty Years War). In an event some time after the Reformation, Germany has to choose its religion and depending on its choice gets either the catholic or the protestant set, with no possibility to get anybody from the other set

 

[Norrefeldt]

Sounds reasonable.

The question becomes complicated since you don't know what nations exist, and I think that's why the KoI setup was done like it is (using Milans and founding states leaders only).
The founding nation likely does not exist, but not even that is 100% certain, since it might revolt into existence after having founded KoG. If the trigger of the founding event is made such that some nation cannot co-exist with KoG when it is founded we might assume these nations' leaders are eligable for KoG as well. For all provinces that are not directly needed to form there are problems involved in using their leaders. The only way I can think of if we want to use leaders from all states is to sleep these nations' leaders if they re-emerge, and only wake them if KoG no longer exist.
To use these leaders we need an event for KoG for each nation, to add these leaders when/if the land is conquered. This might give a leader-hunt we have long wanted to avoid, and that's why we have not made leaders triggered by ownerships of provinces so far.

 

[unmerged(28491)]

Leaders, unification candidates and events

After observing the discussion about the German/HRE unification/centralisation I'd like to post my opinion:

Leaders:

I think that of course most of the German generals would serve in the new imperial/royal army of germany but most of the high nobility would never ever been able to become a high ranking officer. Frederick "the Great" could end up as an unknown Cavalrist or never joining the army and instead becoming an author publishing his book "the anti Machiavell" and criticizing the Absolutist regime of the Emperor or even becoming a revolutionary trying to remove the Emperor (in France there were many revolutionarys who were nobles). All those possibilitys are realistic for Frederick was an enemy of Absolutism (untill he became King ).
"Founding" a kingdom of Germany or reforming the HRE would include major cuts to the power and influence of the nobles within the empire. Frederick only became such a renown military leader because he was king of Prussia and therefore had the chance to lead an army. In a different timeline where for example Austria was able to reform and unite the Empire we could assume that the Habsburgs are promoting officers and nobles within their own core territory instead some low unimportant prussian noble.
I'd propose to give only a few factions the ability to unify Germany and let them keep their original leader's + some leaders wich should be generic for the Empire and some high ranking supporters of the faction which united Germany/reformed the Empire.
In case of Austria the removal of Hungarian leaders would be realistic while they should keep Bohemian leaders especialy if they are going to reform the Empire.



Factions which should be able to unite the Empire/Germany:
Brandenburg, Austria, Bavaria, (+ perhaps The Palatinate)


Only Austria and Brandenburg had ambitions (and a realistic chance) to unite the Empire while Bavaria is included to give an alternative (it had the prestige as well as the power to do it) and the Palatinate as a protestant alternative to Bavaria (prestige and a little chance to become powerfull enough during the 30YW).

Austria's main route should be reform of the Empire with two possibilitys
1st Diplomatic
2nd military (30YW style)
I think I don't have to explain how this should happen. For the 1st possibility there is already a good event posted in the forum and the military option is not that difficult to imagine.
________________________________________________________________

The Palatinate could get a chance to do the job via 30YW if they are able to hold Bohemia they could perhaps replace the Habsburgs as
anti-Emperor "leading" a alliance of protestant nobles (like the Rheinbund) within the HRE and supported (and controlled) by France, Denmark or Sweden. After a given time they could break free from the inofficial French overlordship.
_________________________________________________________________
In Brandenburg's case it would be surely a combination of the Diplomatic and the Military option. Getting support of the Anti-Habsburg nobles and defeating the pro-Habsburg. The result should be a Protestant Bradenburgian/Prussian Emperor and a stepwise reformation of the Empire (Brandenburg becomes Kingdom of Germany,it's supporters are vassalized and it gets some territorys from it's opponent's). The timeframe would be probaly during the reign of Frederick the great and later on (Austro-Prussian dualism).
An advantage of this way: You can get Freddy as leader
_________________________________________________________________

Bavaria could rise to power in the during Luis XIV. rule and follow mostly the path of the Palatinate --> Rheinbund style Germany ---> breaking free from French overlordship. While the Palatinate founds a protestant realm the Bavarian way results in a catholic Germany
_________________________________________________________________


Events

The greatest problem in my opinion is to make new events for the Empire. There are of course events like the Peasant's war which are (more or less)
easy to add but things like the Dynastical relations have to be discussed. Would Charles the V. still make Spain and Burgundy his main dominion handing over the administration over the HRE to his brother when he is Emperor of an truly unified and powerfull Holy Roman Empire ?
I could rather imagine a conflict between him and his brother over the German crown.
Hungary is another "problem". The Habsburg's were since Ferdinand King's of Hungary and they would not have given up this crown but there would have been difficultys with the administration. How to treat the Habsburg Empire ? Should they integrate Hungary into the HRE (like they integrated it into the Austrian) or keeping it as a seperate administrational body ?

note: It would surely be interesting to see a German revolution happening before (and perhaps even influencing) the French revolution, including Frederick the Great as a German Napoleon.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

People are not predestined as military leaders, they become that if the circumstances are right. The last 50 years have seen comparably very few western European wars, and in many countries the armed forces no longer attract the most gifted people. Fewer wars means less demand for and less experienced leaders.
The game is illogical as it is, since a leader that was born in a certain place mostly serve his historical country, even if the home province belong to someone else. Trying to get a historically "true" representation is IMHO impossible. Allowing for a leader file on par with the most important neighbours is rather generous.

that is in part why I suggested using some of the leaders in other capacities.. such as Frederick the Great instead of as a military leader, use him as an excellent minister...

 

[unmerged(36449)]

It would definitely be good and realistic to limit the German leader file. There is no particular reason why Prince Eugene would have served a Germany unified by, say, Saxony, and it's even quite unrealistic to have Tilly (who was a staunch catholic from Wallonia) serve a reformed or protestant Germany. Therefore the German leader file should be divided into several groups:

• there is a "basic" leader set for each possible founding country that is activated automatically upon creation of Germany. For the countries that already have big leader files (Austria, Brandenburg-Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony and Hanover) this set would be almost identical to their original leader file, with the exclusion of some relatively unimportant "filler" leaders, the "religious" leaders and, in the case of Austria, leaders attached to their Bohemian and Hungarian crowns. The countries that do not have leader file or just few leaders might get some leaders from the militarily powerful countries they neigboured (i.e. Pomerania could get some of the Prussian leaders and Oldenburg some of Hanover's), though this might be disputable.
• if a country that has historical leaders has voluntarily joined a Germany created by reform, or under special circumstances with the force-majeur way, Germany gets the German-born leaders of this country's basic set (i.e. not Prince Eugene or Montecuccoli)
• there are sets of "Catholic" and "Protestant" leaders (generally, with a few exceptions, the leaders that fought on the respective sides in the Schmalkaldic War and the Thirty Years War). In an event some time after the Reformation, Germany has to choose its religion and depending on its choice gets either the catholic or the protestant set, with no possibility to get anybody from the other set

now the thinking on the Catholic/Protestent split is good and not one that is strictly based on the mechanics of the game, as is the point Prinz Eugen.. which could mean he would serve at home perhaps?

But keep in mind the hypothetical France when judging if someone would not serve their nation if it was ruled by a different great house OF that nation then their local one. I know it may seem odd to use a hypothetical as a measure of judgement but it is the nearest analog in the region and it does nicely highlight the flaw in "gamist" thought on the matter.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

After observing the discussion about the German/HRE unification/centralisation I'd like to post my opinion:

snip for space

Events

The greatest problem in my opinion is to make new events for the Empire. There are of course events like the Peasant's war which are (more or less)
easy to add but things like the Dynastical relations have to be discussed. Would Charles the V. still make Spain and Burgundy his main dominion handing over the administration over the HRE to his brother when he is Emperor of an truly unified and powerfull Holy Roman Empire ?
I could rather imagine a conflict between him and his brother over the German crown.
Hungary is another "problem". The Habsburg's were since Ferdinand King's of Hungary and they would not have given up this crown but there would have been difficultys with the administration. How to treat the Habsburg Empire ? Should they integrate Hungary into the HRE (like they integrated it into the Austrian) or keeping it as a seperate administrational body ?

note: It would surely be interesting to see a German revolution happening before (and perhaps even influencing) the French revolution, including Frederick the Great as a German Napoleon.

Hungary is a problem, you would get the same kind of discussion that was held in the Frankfurt parliament of 1848...just a whole lot earlier. It is not so much a problem for Bohemia, nor was it probably in 1848 because of its' long association as part OF the empire but I am tangenting again...

Your point on the choice of seat of the Hapsburg empire is a good one. Perhaps we could see it as a way of solving the Hungarian problem?

Have Hungary go the way of Austrian Tuscany and Bourbon Sicily... Hungary is given to the brother and in case of his lines extinction it would go to the second son of the surviving branch. It would keep it in the "family" so to speak but tastfully outside the national framework of Germany so as to cause no problems.

I would think that that Karl V would choose to make the old Imperial capital his home and squeeze France between the two halves of his empire to truly become the Emperor of the West....