• 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.
Anazagar said:
It shouldn't be Prussia choosing who will inherit the dutchy but Poland as Pussia was still a vassal of the kingdom and had no right to do so. Of course if Treaty of Cracow didnt happen then situation would be much diffrent but then the
Hohenzollern-Brandenburg line should always inherit. Puls those events should check what version of Polish - Lithuanian unification did happen as they give diffrent set of cores.
I agree but this option is for players only (an exception...) and Polish - Lithuanian unification check is indeed simplified (only existence of Lithuania is checked and Polish - Lithuanian unification could even not have happened before). It is always possible to enhance this sequence but we have to face limitations of EU2 engine too and my first intention was to fix obvious problems.
Currently, election of Wladyslaw could then be seen as a new "era" and just a choice for players. Be aware action_a in PRU_263009 is already the historical choice.
 
@Toio: what about post #1588 and remaining possible "problems" for monarchs of Stettin?

In post #1578 and reworked monarchs for STT, there is a problem with following events:
Code:
#(1451) Death of Duke Joachim
event = {
	id = 283005
	trigger = { exists = BRA }
	random = no
	country = STT
	name = "EVENTNAME283005" #Death of Duke Joachim
	desc = "EVENTHIST283005"
	#-#

	date = { day = 22 month = september year = 1451 }

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME283005A" #Accept Friedrich of Brandenburg as guardian
		command = { type = relation which = BRA value = 200 }
		command = { type = stability value = 2 }
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 0129510 } #Hohenzollern regency
		command = { type = trigger which = 132020 } #BRA: Regency in Pomerania-Stettin
		command = { type = setflag which = [Regency] }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME283005B" #Appoint a local regency council
		command = { type = relation which = BRA value = -50 }
		command = { type = stability value = -3 }
		command = { type = domestic which = centralization value = -1 }
		command = { type = domestic which = aristocracy value = 1 }
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 0129511 } #Regency council *
	}
}
#-#Duke Joachim of Stettin died prematurely of the plague in 1451, with his son and heir Otto still a minor. His mother Elisabeth, a daughter of Margrave Johann of Brandenburg, took the regency while his uncle Friedrich II of Brandenburg became his guardian. Thus Pomerania-Stettin was effectively controlled by the Hohenzollern for a decade.

Code:
#(1460) Duke Otto takes control of his Duchy
event = {
	id = 283006
	trigger = { flag = [Regency] }
	random = no
	country = STT
	name = "EVENTNAME283006" #Duke Otto takes control of his country
	desc = "EVENTHIST283006"
	#-#

	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1460 }
	offset = 30
	deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 1460 }

	action_a = {
		name = "OK"
		command = { type = breakvassal which = BRA }
		command = { type = stability value = 3 }
	}
}
#-#In 1460, at the age of 15, Otto III took control of the Duchy of Pomerania-Stettin, ending the regency of his mother and Brandenburg's strong influence on his country.

I'm not sure what to do.


And I edited post #1597 with involved event for STT.
 
Last edited:
If you put it that way then ok. Just one more thing. Won't the bb of Prussia skyrocket after inheriting Poland (even moreso Poland - Lithuania) as were most porbably talking here bout more than 10 provinces.
 
Anazagar said:
If you put it that way then ok. Just one more thing. Won't the bb of Prussia skyrocket after inheriting Poland (even moreso Poland - Lithuania) as were most porbably talking here bout more than 10 provinces.
Well... IMHO, player will have to face it. :D
 
YodaMaster said:
@Toio: what about post #1588 and remaining possible "problems" for monarchs of Stettin?

In post #1578 and reworked monarchs for STT, there is a problem with following events:
Code:
#(1451) Death of Duke Joachim
event = {
	id = 283005
	trigger = { exists = BRA }
	random = no
	country = STT
	name = "EVENTNAME283005" #Death of Duke Joachim
	desc = "EVENTHIST283005"
	#-#

	date = { day = 22 month = september year = 1451 }

	action_a = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME283005A" #Accept Friedrich of Brandenburg as guardian
		command = { type = relation which = BRA value = 200 }
		command = { type = stability value = 2 }
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 0129510 } #Hohenzollern regency
		command = { type = trigger which = 132020 } #BRA: Regency in Pomerania-Stettin
		command = { type = setflag which = [Regency] }
	}
	action_b = {
		name = "ACTIONNAME283005B" #Appoint a local regency council
		command = { type = relation which = BRA value = -50 }
		command = { type = stability value = -3 }
		command = { type = domestic which = centralization value = -1 }
		command = { type = domestic which = aristocracy value = 1 }
		command = { type = wakemonarch which = 0129511 } #Regency council *
	}
}
#-#Duke Joachim of Stettin died prematurely of the plague in 1451, with his son and heir Otto still a minor. His mother Elisabeth, a daughter of Margrave Johann of Brandenburg, took the regency while his uncle Friedrich II of Brandenburg became his guardian. Thus Pomerania-Stettin was effectively controlled by the Hohenzollern for a decade.

Code:
#(1460) Duke Otto takes control of his Duchy
event = {
	id = 283006
	trigger = { flag = [Regency] }
	random = no
	country = STT
	name = "EVENTNAME283006" #Duke Otto takes control of his country
	desc = "EVENTHIST283006"
	#-#

	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1460 }
	offset = 30
	deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 1460 }

	action_a = {
		name = "OK"
		command = { type = breakvassal which = BRA }
		command = { type = stability value = 3 }
	}
}
#-#In 1460, at the age of 15, Otto III took control of the Duchy of Pomerania-Stettin, ending the regency of his mother and Brandenburg's strong influence on his country.

I'm not sure what to do.


And I edited post #1597 with involved event for STT.


whats the issue ?

Duchy of Stettin (Szczecin)

* -1220 part of the Duchy of Pomerania
* 1220-1278 Barnim the Good
* 1278-1295 Barnim II, Otto I, Bogislaw IV
* 1295-1344 Otto I
* 1344-1368 Barnim III
* 1368-1372 Casimir III
* 1372-1404 Swantibor I, Bogislaw VII
* 1404-1413 Swantibor I
* 1413-1428 Otto II, Casimir V
* 1428-1435 Casimir V
* 1435-1451 Joachim I
* 1451-1464 Otto III


1464 an event has that POM inherit STT
 
In events 258029 description i would make just one change :
#-#On July 1, 1569 the Lithuanian and Polish magnates as well as the Sejms of these countries met at Lublin on the border of their realms and unanimously signed a new Act of Union. There now existed one united Sejm convening in Warszawa and the country would have one King not only de facto but also de jure. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was to keep its old laws, a separate treasury and its own army under its own Grand Hetman and Field-Hetman. Effectively the Union was a marriage of two partners, with only the slightest hint of the dominant position of Poland. The combined Kingdom now formally became ''Serenissima Respublica Polonie ([Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth)''.

As to stress the dualistic nature of the country (the proposed version is kinda nationalistic - every lithuanian magnate would be offended if you said that he lived in Poland, so yeah)
 
YodaMaster said:
Because it is Poland and Wladyslaw is not German. Prussia should become a tiny part of the kingdom. To keep German culture, Prussia should become Brandenburg or Courland.
But Pomerania gets to keep it? Is that because Pomerania has to conquer Poland rather than inheriting it?
 
MichaelM said:
But Pomerania gets to keep it? Is that because Pomerania has to conquer Poland rather than inheriting it?
Yes, see POM_259002. This is not the same situation. Pomerania has German and Polish cultures from start and, IIRC, will never lose one of them.
 
Last edited:
MichaelM said:
But Pomerania gets to keep it? Is that because Pomerania has to conquer Poland rather than inheriting it?

Prussia dude Prussia not Pommerania. Currently there are two main topics in this thread

1) Pommerania
2) Events bout prussia inheriting Poland

It is the second one in which Prussia loses Geram culture (as it would make Poland much, much too powerful - something like giving france any other culture)

EDIT:
sorry that i do it this way. Well you just beat me to it. My post was in no way ment to be a response to yours as i didnt see it when i was writing.
 
Last edited:
I think MichaelM used Pomerania only for comparison with Prussia and loss of German culture only for Prussia. As I said, situation is not the same:
* conquest involved and disappearance of Poland first for Pomerania,
* historical election but ahistorical situation and only player involved for Prussia.
 
Last edited:
Anazagar said:
In events 258029 description i would make just one change :
#-#On July 1, 1569 the Lithuanian and Polish magnates as well as the Sejms of these countries met at Lublin on the border of their realms and unanimously signed a new Act of Union. There now existed one united Sejm convening in Warszawa and the country would have one King not only de facto but also de jure. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was to keep its old laws, a separate treasury and its own army under its own Grand Hetman and Field-Hetman. Effectively the Union was a marriage of two partners, with only the slightest hint of the dominant position of Poland. The combined Kingdom now formally became ''Serenissima Respublica Polonie ([Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth)''.

As to stress the dualistic nature of the country (the proposed version is kinda nationalistic - every lithuanian magnate would be offended if you said that he lived in Poland, so yeah)

isnt the polish-Lithurian Commonwealth proper name
Rzeczpospolita Korony Polskiej i Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego also as 'Republic (Commonwealth) of the Two (Both) Nations (Peoples),

if its a republic where does the house of vasa (waza) come in ?

why have we in the POL monarch's list Vasa kings? at the time of POL being a republic? Is our monarch's list wrong?
 
I have been checking lots of sources both books and internet and the conclusion is that danzig was a POM area for hundreds of years. The problem is that the river in our map runs on the wrong side of danzig province. the river should really run through the letter z in danzig. This means that danzig city is on the western side of the vistuila river.
Now what to do

do we give POM a core on danzig even when history and our setup dictates that the teutonic ruled it. ?. If so we can still give POM a core as history shows that POM was to weak militarily to retake danzig.

or

Is there another solution. ?

Catering for AI history we need to also cater to a human player, if its historical then I see no reason not to start the GC by granting POM a core on danzig.

loss of core
I suggest with event below as a trade centre it would be too valuable for the current holder to let go

#(1435-1455) Danzig has a chance to become a trade center
#Vilkouak-AGC
event = {
id = 20124
trigger = {
owned = { province = 301 data = LAT } #Danzig
atwar = no
}
random = no
province = 301 #Danzig
name = "EVENTNAME20124" #Danzig has a chance to become a trade center
desc = "EVENTHIST20124"
#-#Western Europe was in growing need of grain in the 15th century. It couldn't be gained any other means than by trade. Poland produced much more grain than it needed. 'Homo Oeconomicus' got his chance and used it very well. Danzig, a city always based on trade, reshaped into the most important center in the Baltic region, excepting only perhaps Lubeck.

date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1435 }
offset = 300
deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1455 }

action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME20124A" #Yes, we can make money on it
command = { type = provinceculture which = 301 value = german } #Middle German #Danzig
command = { type = population which = 301 value = 5000 } #Danzig
command = { type = provincetax which = 301 value = 3 } #Danzig
command = { type = removecot which = 282 } #Livland
command = { type = cot which = 301 } #Danzig
command = { type = stability value = 1 }
command = { type = treasury value = -50 }
}
}


thoughts????
 
Toio said:
isnt the polish-Lithurian Commonwealth proper name
Rzeczpospolita Korony Polskiej i Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego also as 'Republic (Commonwealth) of the Two (Both) Nations (Peoples),

if its a republic where does the house of vasa (waza) come in ?

why have we in the POL monarch's list Vasa kings? at the time of POL being a republic? Is our monarch's list wrong?

There's a bit of confussion.
The term "Rzeczpospolita" didn't mean republic in the modern sense. It's from the Latin "Res Publica", "The public thing" "The public matter" and the term is much more better translated as the "Commonwealth". Thus the official name was "Commonwealth of Both Nations" (Polish and Lithuanian)
 
Toio said:
I have been checking lots of sources both books and internet and the conclusion is that danzig was a POM area for hundreds of years. The problem is that the river in our map runs on the wrong side of danzig province. the river should really run through the letter z in danzig. This means that danzig city is on the western side of the vistuila river.
Now what to do

do we give POM a core on danzig even when history and our setup dictates that the teutonic ruled it. ?. If so we can still give POM a core as history shows that POM was to weak militarily to retake danzig.

Umm, not really. Althought the whole area between Oder and Vistula was called "Pomerania", the only time when these two were part of the same political organism was when they belonged to some bigger, foreign nations (like early Piast Poland). I don't think that the core would be justified.
 
Toio said:
isnt the polish-Lithurian Commonwealth proper name
Rzeczpospolita Korony Polskiej i Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego also as 'Republic (Commonwealth) of the Two (Both) Nations (Peoples),

if its a republic where does the house of vasa (waza) come in ?

why have we in the POL monarch's list Vasa kings? at the time of POL being a republic? Is our monarch's list wrong?


NOooooo way of. Polish szlachta AFAIK took the term republic in a more straightforward way. You know like from latin Respublica - public thing (and by public we mean szlachta in our context). In Polish historiography our government is called demokracja szlachecka (nobles republic) later in XVII it has changed to Magnates Oligarchy (mainly because magnates de facto have siezed the power in the country).

But still the commowealth has had kings (even if their power was very limited)
but every one of them after the end of Jagiellonian dynasty was elected.
The same is with Vasas Zygmunt the III was elected in 1587. Even if he was not the most popular king his son Wladisław the IV was elected in 1632.
 
Anazagar said:
NOooooo way of. Polish szlachta AFAIK took the term republic in a more straightforward way. You know like from latin Respublica - public thing (and by public we mean szlachta in our context). In Polish historiography our government is called demokracja szlachecka (nobles republic) later in XVII it has changed to Magnates Oligarchy (mainly because magnates de facto have siezed the power in the country).

But still the commowealth has had kings (even if their power was very limited)
but every one of them after the end of Jagiellonian dynasty was elected.
The same is with Vasas Zygmunt the III was elected in 1587. Even if he was not the most popular king his son Wladisław the IV was elected in 1632.

if what you say is correct , why then use the venetian word Serenissima , which means in that sole word, the most serene republic of venice ?

Serenissima means more than the most serene


To conclude , if in our game POL and LIT does not form a commonwealth (union) is the monarch list wrong?

are there events for only the commonwealth and not for POL or LIT? and should they have.

Bascially should all events after the formation of the commonwealth have a trigger to guarantee that the commonwealth event fired?
 
Toio said:
if what you say is correct , why then use the venetian word Serenissima , which means in that sole word, the most serene republic of venice ?

Serenissima means more than the most serene


To conclude , if in our game POL and LIT does not form a commonwealth (union) is the monarch list wrong?

are there events for only the commonwealth and not for POL or LIT? and should they have.

Bascially should all events after the formation of the commonwealth have a trigger to guarantee that the commonwealth event fired?

If POL and LIT does not form commonwealth then we don know what would have happened as it would have changed the fate of the whole europe. Besides i dont really see the possibility of such a situation from 1440 onwards when Kazimierz IV became the Grand Prince of Lithuania (and in 1447 king of Poland)

Basicly its impossible to tell what would have happened in this situation as its too complex. Probably the magnates would be much weaker and middle nobility stronger (as most magnates from XVII cent. onwards powerbase was in Ukraine or Lithuania). Russia would expand westwards a lot sooner. Poland would take much bigger role in European politics. But its impossible to tell what would really happen.

Oh and bout the Serenissima bit i dont know i always thought that it just meant most serene in latin or something. In this situation it comes from the title Najjaśniejsza (a polish word meaning most serene) often added to Rzeczpospolita in the times in the game.
 
Last edited: