Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

AGC-EEP Holland

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
YodaMaster said:
Proposed CoA for Brabant-Limburg:

shieldhaunw2.png

smallshieldhauad3.png


shieldhauaw9.png

smallshieldhaudh1.png


Flag is the same as current set.

As suggested above, current set is renamed as hauBrabant and will used at start in 1419.

Reworked event:
Code: 
#(1430) The Succession in Brabant
#modified by Jester to nullify RevoltRisk generated by HAU_182002
event = {
	id = 3775
	trigger = { exists = BUR }
	random = no
	country = HAU
	name = "EVENTNAME3775" #The Succession in Brabant
	desc = "EVENTHIST3775"
	#-#

	date = { day = 1 month = august year = 1430 }

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME3775A" #Let us be a part of Great Burgundy (End Game)
		command = { type = trigger which = 3776 } #BUR: The Succession in Brabant
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME3775B" #Let us elect a local Count as Duke
		[COLOR=Yellow]command = { type = flagname which = "" }[/COLOR]
		command = { type = trigger which = 3778 } #BUR: The Succession in Brabant
		command = { type = stability value = -3 }
		command = { type = revolt which = -1 }
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 379 value = -8 } #Artois
	}
}
#-#The Duchy of Brabant had been under Burgundian influence for a while already in the decades leading up to 1430 with side branches of the Burgundian dynasty occupying the title of Duke but on the 1st of August, 1430 it formally passed to the control of Philip the Good of Burgundy further strengthening the Burgundian hold on the Netherlands and continuing Philip's moves towards unification of the Netherlands.

But in monarchs.hau, Nevers-Rethel dynasty was chosen for ahistorical b choice in this event. Is it correct with Limburg? According to this list, we should have the same rulers as Burgundy and Habsburgs in the end. With this list, ACTIONNAME3775B reworked for Limburg doesn't make much sense to me since Philip the Good will be the ruler in both cases.
Click to expand...

well Limburg used Burgundian monarchs so there is no issue, and if Limburg cannot revolt if BUR exists then we are ok

Hmmm, on COA , is very good. ........But I was hoping we can use the Limburg/brabant COA as the flag for the revolter , ...only to indicate while in play in game that it was not brabant but Limburg that was present in the low countries
 
@ yodamaster

can you please give me a flag for post 741

just a flag will do (rectangular)

flag in link , which is titled
Flag according to the arms
 
YodaMaster said:
About Limburg, we just have to tweak ACTIONNAME3775B then, local count doesn't fit at all.

Shouldn't flags be the same (Nord Brabant)?
Click to expand...


to me for view preference in play , it would be easier to..........under a flag which has the combined arms of brabant and limburg to be recognized as a revolter.
 
Toio said:
to me for view preference in play , it would be easier to..........under a flag which has the combined arms of brabant and limburg to be recognized as a revolter.
Click to expand...
It is just about accuracy, not gameplay.
 
Toio said:
@ yodamaster

can you please give me a flag for post 741

just a flag will do (rectangular)

flag in link , which is titled
Flag according to the arms
Click to expand...
flagfritb0.png


What about the CoA? Will it be the same quartered one as the flag or only the eagle?
 
Last edited:
YodaMaster said:
flagfritb0.png


What about the CoA? Will it be the same quartered one as the flag or only the eagle?
Click to expand...

OK, if its not a issue
 
YodaMaster said:
Ok... for which one?

Quartered CoA are always hard to make (for me).
Click to expand...

don't bother then, the flag will suffice

thanks for flag , what did you name it
 
YodaMaster said:
About Limburg, we just have to tweak ACTIONNAME3775B then, local count doesn't fit at all.

Shouldn't flags be the same (Nord Brabant)?
Click to expand...

???

if action 3775 B fires , then brabant is still in play and the revolter cannot form
 
Toio said:
Ok on holland province

On naming for forum....I use Limburg to indicated to myself and future viewers of this forum , that Limburg would represent only a revolter. The beauty of hainault was we never needed to do this.

On capital, the issue is , IF brabant/limburg revolt, then a capital in zeeland would not mess with a "spanish netherlands" in brabant and flanders , if it occurs. Because this "limburg" revolter can still revolt with Spain in the low countries
Click to expand...


I think calling it Limburg is even more confusing as the revolter is simply an expanded Brabant. Limburg is pretty much irrelevant beyond the fact that adding it to the CoA gives more legitimacy to this expanded Brabant.
 
Toio said:
Hmmm, on COA , is very good. ........But I was hoping we can use the Limburg/brabant COA as the flag for the revolter , ...only to indicate while in play in game that it was not brabant but Limburg that was present in the low countries
Click to expand...

WTF? Why are we giving any prominence to Limburg? It was piratically a non-entity so why would it get priority over Brabant?

/if you look at your wiki link, Limburg is tiny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_limburg
 
YodaMaster said:
About events, there is a problem with The Brabant Revolution sequence by Archeolooginspe starting with HAB_179300 in 1789 and use of HAU tag for the United States of Belgium.
If we want to use HAU tag for this, we must expand expirydate but HAU will have to not be able to revolt from HOL.

EDIT: not sure for Artois (379).
Click to expand...

That sequence seems very suspect, seeing as how the United States of Belgium existed as a year long revolt.
 
Garbon said:
That sequence seems very suspect, seeing as how the United States of Belgium existed as a year long revolt.
Click to expand...
This sequence is broken anyway. Austria granting independence to HAU will have no effect with current dates (even if extended until 1558) in revolt.txt.
 
We should probably delete HAB:179302, 179304, 179310 + HAU:182300-1

I'd re-work HAB:179301 like this:

Code: 
#(1790-1791) [color=limegreen]Suppression of the Brabant Revolution[/color]
event = {
	id = 179301
	trigger = {
		event = 179300
		[color=red]NOT = { event = 179302 }[/color]
		[color=yellow]OR= {
			AND = {[/color]
				owned = { province = 378 data = -1 } #Brabant
				control = { province = 378 data = -1 } #Brabant
			[color=yellow]}
			AND = {
				owned = { province = 380 data = -1 } #Flandern
				control = { province = 380 data = -1 } #Flandern
			}
		}[/color]
	}
	random = no
	country = HAB
	name = "EVENTNAME179301" #Leopold II recaptures the Southern Netherlands
	desc = "EVENTHIST179301"
	#-#on 3 december troops of Leopold II captured Brussels and ended the short lived state of Belgium.

	date = { day = 2 month = december year = 1790 }
	offset = 56
	deathdate = { [color=limegreen]day = 29 month = december year = 1820[/color] }

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME179301A" #That will teach them
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 378 value = -6 } #Brabant
		command = { type = province_revoltrisk which = 380 value = -6 } #Flandern
	}
}

On December 3rd , 1790, the december troops of Leopold II captured Brussels and ended the short lived state of Belgium.


Only downside is that if Austria loses the provinces and then manages to get them back, it'll have this event fire...
 
Garbon said:
Only downside is that if Austria loses the provinces and then manages to get them back, it'll have this event fire...
Click to expand...
Maybe a new event to check if provinces are lost between 179300 and 179301 that will sleep 179301 in this case?
 
Garbon said:
I think calling it Limburg is even more confusing as the revolter is simply an expanded Brabant. Limburg is pretty much irrelevant beyond the fact that adding it to the CoA gives more legitimacy to this expanded Brabant.
Click to expand...
Garbon said:
WTF? Why are we giving any prominence to Limburg? It was piratically a non-entity so why would it get priority over Brabant?

/if you look at your wiki link, Limburg is tiny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_limburg
Click to expand...
For me, it is still Brabant. Do you mean CoA shouldn't be reworked?

At least, I think the flag should remain unchanged.

What about monarchs? Do we keep Nevers-Reuthel dynasty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back