AGC/EEP Poland-Lithuania thread

[unmerged(6159)]

I am against taxdrops in all privileges. Privileges shifted the power to impose taxes from king to Sejm. But they were paid annually. During the EU2 timeframe also England and Netherlands experienced the same shift. Surprisingly, they do not get the tax penalty.

That's just not right. In both the Netherlands and in England the estates had always been strong. There were efforts by James I and Charles I in England to reduce their perogatives, and by Phillip II and Phillip III in the Netherlands to do the same. In the Netherlands they were ultimately somewhat sucessful.

In neither case did the estates take taxation power away from the monarch, except in the cases where there was a break with the throne (1572 in the Netherlands, 1648 in England).

The fact is that the loss of royal authority over taxation was a critical factor in what happened to Poland in the 17th and 18th centuries. Without the power of taxation no centralized Royal Army could be maintained and the central government could not establish a monopoly on the use of force. In both England and the Netherlands the central power had no problem establishing a monopoly over the use of force, as the power of the magnates was broken in both countries.

 

[Herr Doctor]

That's just not right. In both the Netherlands and in England the estates had always been strong. There were efforts by James I and Charles I in England to reduce their perogatives, and by Phillip II and Phillip III in the Netherlands to do the same. In the Netherlands they were ultimately somewhat sucessful.

In neither case did the estates take taxation power away from the monarch, except in the cases where there was a break with the throne (1572 in the Netherlands, 1648 in England).

The fact is that the loss of royal authority over taxation was a critical factor in what happened to Poland in the 17th and 18th centuries. Without the power of taxation no centralized Royal Army could be maintained and the central government could not establish a monopoly on the use of force. In both England and the Netherlands the central power had no problem establishing a monopoly over the use of force, as the power of the magnates was broken in both countries.

I really case to see what the difference between the Sejm executing the King’s role collecting taxes (as the Staaten-General in the Netherlands where there was no any kind of strong central power) and the King doing it? The Sejm IS the central government of Poland-Lithuania and it DID have the full authority to execute any right it took off the King. The other problem that in the second half of the 17th – 18th centuries the Sejm was paralyzed with the Liberum Veto and other Golden liberties and could not act effectively.

Concerning the Netherlands’ central power: the Staaten-General had no authority to control and recruit the provincial armies and navies for a long time (States-Provincial did). The Stadhouder (who was the same person in all provinces since 1580s, but whose authorities were divided) until the 1676 had military powers only during wars.

 

[unmerged(52196)]

That's just not right. In both the Netherlands and in England the estates had always been strong. There were efforts by James I and Charles I in England to reduce their perogatives, and by Phillip II and Phillip III in the Netherlands to do the same. In the Netherlands they were ultimately somewhat sucessful.

In neither case did the estates take taxation power away from the monarch, except in the cases where there was a break with the throne (1572 in the Netherlands, 1648 in England).

The fact is that the loss of royal authority over taxation was a critical factor in what happened to Poland in the 17th and 18th centuries. Without the power of taxation no centralized Royal Army could be maintained and the central government could not establish a monopoly on the use of force. In both England and the Netherlands the central power had no problem establishing a monopoly over the use of force, as the power of the magnates was broken in both countries.

That is exactly my point. The problem is that Vanilla and AGCEEP break the backbone of Poland in 15th century with taxdropps that occur with privileges events. The problem is that these privileges reduced royal power, but did not reduce the effectiveness of country's government. They also did not affect its centralization. Polish diet, Sejm, was a central organ with power to impose taxes. Surprisingly, this system worked well and 16th century was Polish Golden Age on every field. At that time Polish government was much stronger than those of neighboring states. Taxes were imposed and paid annually not under the threat of royal force but by the citizen consciousness of the nobility.

The situation changed in mid 17th century together with deep economic and social crisis. it resulted in pauperization of cities and especially the medium nobility which was the main check for the power of high aristocracy. On the contrary, it strengthened the position of the magnates who became almost independent rulers in their regions. Magnates paralyzed the central organs of the state - executive (king), legislative (Sejm) and judiciary (the Trybunal). The power shifted to Sejmiki, regional diets, which were tools in magnate hands.

What we want to do is to shift the time of Polish decline to the historical moment.

 

[zdlugasz]

Just as an aside. Doesn't Poland already get one free conversion with the 'Treaty of Brest" event? Lithuania gets two under the Conflict over Religious Tolerance event.

Treaty of Brest is about Unietes and Disunites - two fractions of orthodox church (where Unites chosen Union with catholic church). So it is for orthodox provinces (like Podolia, Ukraine, Mozyr etc) as Lithuania should be inherited.

What I am thinking about is province-specific, turning back newly proposed reformation which will change, previously catholic, reformed provinces into catholic.

Basically I want to turn calvinism in provinces for about 50 years, thus we should turn it off when counter-reformation kicks in (as there is no chance that AI will be able to do it by itself)

 

[unmerged(52196)]

Guys, what do you think about the next version of Grain Trade sequence?

I want to finish it finally.


And I also want to replace privilege taxdropps by the Deluge.

 

[zdlugasz]

Re: Lithuanian taxes

Zdlugasz already submited this

Not really, if you mean neminen captivamus (without wiki I have no idea how it should be spelled), I just delayed them - nothing was removed. Plus IIRC there is some random tax drop during reign of Vytautas

 

[zdlugasz]

Guys, what do you think about the next version of Grain Trade sequence?

I want to finish it finally.


And I also want to replace privilege taxdropps by the Deluge.

Fast comment (only after skipping over events):
- DP slider changes should fit overall DP strategy. For 1.50 I have reworked existing events to achieve some goal. Throwing change of 2 or 3 (even 4 in one case) is overkill.
What does -4 mercantilism represent? That Poland became Merchant republic? IMO it is nonsense.
In my work I have concentrated mostly on centralization, serfdom and aristocracy and now there is gradual change. Poland already has serfdom and aristocracy 10 (or 9). It were political decisions (priviliges,pacta coventa, and Liberum veto is coming anyway) that led to it. How economic crisis is able to increase aristocracy by 3? Political decisions do it. Why all political effects have to be duplicated in all possible events?

Edit: also regarding serfdom: nobility did not want to limit it. Good economy meant better life for all, also peasants (and we have tax increase), bad policy, bad events caused that peasants were exploited more. But changes +-2 are IMO overkill, not proportional to the overall socio-economical establishment.

Edit2: why -1 (random)?, provincespecific would be better IMO

Edit3: Liberum Veto (scaled down by me) brings +2 serfdom and +1 aristocracy right now, from that moment events (like 1697 election) overflow DP (equal 10)
And we know that Liberm Veto was not about serfdom etc. If we remove serfdom from Liberum Veto, we can add it here.


BTW unreasonable cash in Liberum Veto and Pact Conventa was removed, let us not add unreasonable positive cash in new events. While Buratin minted cash just for state, king did not have monopoly on grain trade.


I have to rethink this all

 

[zdlugasz]

@Herr Doctor: I went back to look at Buratini and amount of cash he generates. Did you scale/compare it somehow to real values?

IIRC Norrefeldt said that annual income of Poland in 1648 scenario is about 300 and annual census (from my experience) is about 100 ducats.

 

[zdlugasz]

desc = "Since 1619 the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was struck with greatest economic crisis in its history. The direct cause was the long war with Sweden, particullary the invasion of Swedish army which blockaded the Commonwealth’s main ports and disrupted the grain trade, country’s main source of incomes. Yet, as always, the true reasons for the crisis were deeper. The Commonwealth’s grain-focused economy was unable to reform itself and introduce more developed forms of production and trade. The crisis resulted in hiperinflation, pauperization of lesser nobility, strengthening of serfdom and deterioration of cities. However it was not enough, and Commonwealth was struck with lesser economical crackdowns many times in upcoming decades. Many tend to forget that it was the economy, not the political turmoil that eventually led to the downfall of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth."
[/CODE]

Sweden very rarely blockaded Poland. Only 1626-1629 fights were in the area of Gdansk/Danzig and before all fights were in Livonia. Nevertheless trade functioned (also because it were Swedish allies - Netherlands, who were buying Polish grain).

AS you see, the tax bonuses in gran trade, recovery and crisis event now nullyfy themselves.

Maybe together with Deluge? because as far as I see
1st event +3, second +3, third -9, fourth +6 = +3 total? and +4 mapower. I thought that it was supposed to be crisis.


Economic boom of XVIth century had its roots in growing prices of grain in Western Europe (an influx of gold and silver from New World). This tendency was inverted at the beginning of XVIIth century and soon grain prices tumbled down (as crisis in Western europe appeared and influx of precious ore has significanlty decreased). Additionally efficiency of Polish agriculture was declining as well (so to keep the sam production level serfdom had to be increased).

My proposal:
we can move mercantilism and serfdom from Liberum Veto here (and add make stability in Liberum veto negative; I dunno why someone (=Paradox) thought it should be positive)

 

[Herr Doctor]

@Herr Doctor: I went back to look at Buratini and amount of cash he generates. Did you scale/compare it somehow to real values?

IIRC Norrefeldt said that annual income of Poland in 1648 scenario is about 300 and annual census (from my experience) is about 100 ducats.

I think the sums I used look quite realistic with Poland getting ordinary annual 100-150 ducats in game. So, extraordinary sums (more than 20.000.000 zlotys minted) should be really times bigger than annual income.

 

[Herr Doctor]

My proposal:
we can move mercantilism and serfdom from Liberum Veto here (and add make stability in Liberum veto negative; I dunno why someone (=Paradox) thought it should be positive)

Because this right is supposed to “please” the nobles as one of the main basis of “Golden liberties”. I think it is reasonable on early stages.


As to the taxes penalties in privileges: as I said they should be removed IMO. If somebody thinks that Poland should be made weaker, we can add more to Deluge and economical crisis events, but these penalties in he privileges events are just senseless.

 

[zdlugasz]

As to the taxes penalties in privileges: as I said they should be removed IMO. If somebody thinks that Poland should be made weaker, we can add more to Deluge and economical crisis events, but these penalties in he privileges events are just senseless.

I am indifferent to this issue, partially agree but partially not (Sejm would not give money for conquests in HRE or even for war with Sweden so IMO at least some reduction is appropriate).
Early reductions could also simulate internal weakness and magnates taking over royal income (this would be partially revesed e.g. by Sejms in 1550 and 1560).

IMO some balance should be kept and also Deluge event should be almost unavoidable by AI and hard to avoid by human (also DP settings - Deluge happened (ultimately) because of unability to quell Cossack rebelion, and that happened because of (among other things) high aristocracy and serfdom).

 

[zdlugasz]

Because this right is supposed to “please” the nobles as one of the main basis of “Golden liberties”. I think it is reasonable on early stages.

Liberum Veto at that stage represents anarchistic side of it. In fact "Liberum veto" was theoretically working since (at least) beginning of XVIIth century if not from first elections (I do not remember when exactly it was established), but nobility was able to work around it and "voices of protest" were not allowed (I have read about a few examples that such voices were just ignored by majority or were not allowed to be expressed - e.g. before war with Ottoman Empire in 1621).

 

[Halibutt]

Liberum Veto at that stage represents anarchistic side of it. In fact "Liberum veto" was theoretically working since (at least) beginning of XVIIth century if not from first elections (I do not remember when exactly it was established), but nobility was able to work around it and "voices of protest" were not allowed (I have read about a few examples that such voices were just ignored by majority or were not allowed to be expressed - e.g. before war with Ottoman Empire in 1621).

First of all, it's been ages since I contributed to EEP, so it might happen that people already mentioned that (sorry, don't have enough time to read all of the related topics), but...

1. The Liberum Veto event desperately needs more triggers. Just imagine my latest game (first in several years, actually), where my Poland is 100% centralised, a vast empire, with etatist monarch, no power vested in the nobility whatsoever and relying mostly on trade and not taxes or production. And all of a sudden my state is badly beaten by... the non-existen szlachta who put me against the wall and force me to introduce the Liberum Veto. That said, in game terms a fully centralized state, with Aristocracy level 0 should get a less severe event IMO.
2. The event itself is fine and should be as severe as it is (perhaps even more), but IMHO it would be much, much better if the penalty was applied in smaller doses. What I mean is that the overall decline of Poland should be represented by more than one or two events. Sure, Siciński is a nice figure to illustrate the problems of the republic, but he was not the only problem - and all of the problems did not emerge all of a sudden, whereas in the game it appears so
3. As to other issues, the event with election after Sobieski's death fires just fine, but what happens next is a tad bizarre. I went with big fat Sobieski Jr. (why are his stats so high, BTW), but the whole war of Polish succession and the conflicts triggered anyway.

Cheers

 

[zdlugasz]

1. The Liberum Veto event desperately needs more triggers. Just imagine my latest game (first in several years, actually), where my Poland is 100% centralised, a vast empire, with etatist monarch, no power vested in the nobility whatsoever and relying mostly on trade and not taxes or production. And all of a sudden my state is badly beaten by... the non-existen szlachta who put me against the wall and force me to introduce the Liberum Veto. That said, in game terms a fully centralized state, with Aristocracy level 0 should get a less severe event IMO.
2. The event itself is fine and should be as severe as it is (perhaps even more), but IMHO it would be much, much better if the penalty was applied in smaller doses. What I mean is that the overall decline of Poland should be represented by more than one or two events. Sure, Siciński is a nice figure to illustrate the problems of the republic, but he was not the only problem - and all of the problems did not emerge all of a sudden, whereas in the game it appears so

1. 
   
   Liberum Veto has trigger aristocracy = 7 so human can avoid it easily and anyway for 1.50 I have reduced overflow of aristocracy, serfdom and negative centralization.
   
   

   As to other issues, the event with election after Sobieski's death fires just fine, but what happens next is a tad bizarre. I went with big fat Sobieski Jr. (why are his stats so high, BTW), but the whole war of Polish succession and the conflicts triggered anyway.

   
   I wonder as well, I guess it is glamour of C options (son of Matthias Corvinus was also jerk).

 

[Herr Doctor]

Liberum Veto at that stage represents anarchistic side of it. In fact "Liberum veto" was theoretically working since (at least) beginning of XVIIth century if not from first elections (I do not remember when exactly it was established), but nobility was able to work around it and "voices of protest" were not allowed (I have read about a few examples that such voices were just ignored by majority or were not allowed to be expressed - e.g. before war with Ottoman Empire in 1621).

It is truth. The first time it was used in 1650s only, but the fact is that it was considered natural thing by the nobles and the voices against it were not numerous. So, it supposed to have stability bonus IMO.

 

[zdlugasz]

It is truth. The first time it was used in 1650s only, but the fact is that it was considered natural thing by the nobles and the voices against it were not numerous. So, it supposed to have stability bonus IMO.

Fine, however I propose to add rokosz of Lubomirski (and kick the stability down ) to show other aspects of Golden Freedom/Liberty
It could also be second event changing DP settings after Liberum Veto (as Halibutt has mentioned) .

 

[Herr Doctor]

Fine, however I propose to add rokosz of Lubomirski (and kick the stability down ) to show other aspects of Golden Freedom/Liberty
It could also be second event changing DP settings after Liberum Veto (as Halibutt has mentioned) .

Wonderful idea. I also will later to write several events about more realistic civil war in Lithuania in 1697-1700, so it could simulate the period of disasters even better.

 

[Herr Doctor]

Fine, however I propose to add rokosz of Lubomirski (and kick the stability down ) to show other aspects of Golden Freedom/Liberty
It could also be second event changing DP settings after Liberum Veto (as Halibutt has mentioned) .

Also we can add events about the fouled-up Sejms (giving -1 stability, -200 cash and some army drop for example). Since 1652 (when Liberum veto was used for the first time) until 1764 (when the partial limitation of its use were implemented) 48 of 55 Sejms were fouled-up because of “veto”. I think this could represent the situation with paralyzed government quite picturesque. What do you think?

 

[zdlugasz]

Also we can add events about the fouled-up Sejms (giving -1 stability, -200 cash and some army drop for example). Since 1652 (when Liberum veto was used for the first time) until 1764 (when the partial limitation of its use were implemented) 48 of 55 Sejms were fouled-up because of “veto”. I think this could represent the situation with paralyzed government quite picturesque. What do you think?

Random? IMO cash or army drop, because cash was needed for army. And we should take into account that in some periods country was not completely paralyzed and wars were conducted (e.g. Sobieski IMO should not have extra bad events, and Deluge are covered by other events (also war of succession and Great Northern War already have some events).
So one rokosz and I would say one event for Korybut Wiśniowiecki (plus Deluge). IMO it should be enough before 1697. Later is free ride, but we have to watch out to not duplicate effects of existing events.

We should add centralization and aristocracy triggers everywhere.