AGCEEP beta development: Germany & Austria

[Twoflower]

Kaspar Winzerer, was he leading armies till his death? Not that he will unbalance anything with his stats, I'm just wondering.

As can be told from the summary of his career, not as far as I know, however Bavaria wasn't really involved in any wars at the time, either. So he could have led armies until his dead if Bavaria had needed him. I don't see much wrong about letting his service end in 1531 or so, but as you said he doesn't exactly upset the balance with his stats.

Is Tilly given rank 0 on the grounds that he was good. It's not something we have decided to follow, but I kind of like the idea with mostly monarchs as 0. Could be extended to very able ones as well.

You gotta ask Paradox about that, I didn't change anything there I'd agree with lowering his rank to 1 if many of the monarch leaders involved in the TYW get their rank lowered as well.... Tilly certainly shouldn't loose a siege to Wilhelm of Hesse-Cassel or Georg of Brunswick-Lüneburg (if these countries happen to be allied to Bavaria).

Will you add information on the last ones?

Err, I guess I should, lazy me

Deroy's date has a typo.

Yes, thank you.

I see that you have called the leaders by their last name, but shouldn't the 'von' be added to several as well? I don't know enough about German standard in this case, but it should be by German standard, that's for sure.

German standard is to omit the "von". For example, when you look at this list of TYW biographies, you will see that people are sorted just by the last part of their names and that the "von" doesn't even appear in the list.

 

[unmerged(9404)]

While I do agree with your point, remember that this is in fact already done quíte much, both in vanilla EU2 and EEP. Among many others, non-Kingdoms like Milan, the Palatinate, Burgundy, Lithuania, Hanover, Savoy, Albania or Brandenburg all get monarch leaders (and all those countries are monarchies, just no Kingdoms). Did anybody ever experiment with giving monarch leaders ranks (lower than rank 0)? I know I implemented a monarch leader for Wirtemberg with rank 3 a while ago, but still don't know whether this has any effect.
Should this work, we could try to introduce a rank system for monarchs, where 0 goes to Kings, Emperors and Popes, 1 to sovereign rulers who are of lower rank (the Duke of Burgundy, the Grand Dukes of Lithuania and Muscovy), 2 to vassal princes of the HRE, the Kingdom of France or any other monarchy (e.g. I would put the monarchs of Anatolian ghazi states or of Ottoman vassal states like Walachia in that category). However otherwise for reasons of consistency I do not think Bavarian monarchs should be treated differently from monarchs of any of the mentioned countries.

It was just a thought that appeared to me looking at your work. The system you describe would be great if it works, Maybe I should try to test it....

 

[unmerged(6159)]

I agree about the "von's". We don't include the "de's" for the French leaders either.

Tilly
Johann Tserclaes Graf von Tilly
included in EU2
Summarising his whole career would take rather long. One of the three best leaders of the Thirty Years War, only Wallenstein and Gustav Adolf were probably superior to him. Of the 38 battles he fought in his life he lost only three, Breitenfeld and Rain am Lech, both against G2A, who has 6-6-5-1, had a much more disciplined and better trained army and outnumbered Tilly's army by 10000 men, and Mingolsheim against Mansfeld in 1622. He became the commander of the Bavarian army in 1608, when Maximilian appointed him to seize Donauwörth. White Mountain - arguably the most spectacular victory anybody managed to pull off in TYW - was his victory. Among the cities he managed to capture are Heidelberg, Mannheim and, most notably, Magdeburg.
He is beyond any doubt in, the question is whether he is currently underrated (he has 3-4-4-1). Certainly he was no genius like Wallenstein or G2A, yet still very good and better than anybody else. Rather low maneuver might be right, since he
took massive losses because of bad quarters or bad marching plans during some campaigns (which was partially due to Wallenstein forcing him to take those bad positions), but a 5 in shock or fire is justified IMO. He also performed the two most well-known sieges of the TYW, Heidelberg and Magdeburg, which makes a 2 in siege at least worth consideration - probably should remain 1 if we decide to tune down the siege values throughout the place.
serves: 1608 - April 30th 1632
rank: 0
stats:
currently: maneuver 3, shock 4, fire 4, siege 1
suggested: maneuver 3, shock 5, fire 5, siege 1

I'd agree that his reputation isn't as good as it probably ought to be. Heidelburg was a very well known siege, but didn't it drag on forever? He does deserve (military) credit for Magdeburg though. What are the stats of some of his other opponents, in particular Thurn and Mansfeld? Those drive my opinion of whether he ought to get 5's or not.

Werth
Johann Graf von Werth
included in EU2
Legendary cavalry general. Joined the army of the League in 1630. Decided the battle of Nördlingen by a brillant cavalry charge. Responsible for the invasion of France in 1636, that stopped before Paris. Defeated Melander near Koblenz in 1637, retook the fortress of Ehrenbreitstein. Trying to prevent Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar from crossing the Rhine, he first gained a victory at Rheinfelden on February 28th 1638, but was defeated and captured on March 3rd. Released ony in March 1642. Shortly thereafter served the Archbishop-Elector of Cologne and liberated all of Cologne. Then won battles for the Emperor against France at Tuttlingen in 1643 and Freiburg in 1644. In 1645 was defeated by a Swedish army near Jankau, won against the French at Herbsthausen and was beaten at Allerheim. Refused to stop fighting when Bavaria left the war on March 16th 1647, as a consequence the Elector outlawed him and he had to flee to Austria.
Also worth consideration as a leader for Cologne, if only for one year.
serves: 1630 - February 28th 163 8
rank: 2
stats:
currently: maneuver 4, shock 2, fire 3, siege 0
suggested: maneuver 4, shock 4, fire 2, siege 0

What are Saxe-Weimar's stats in the game? They ought to be OK, but that would push my opinion here. Jankau was the decisive battle of the late part of the war. And that was against Wrangel wasn't it? What was his role in the invasion of France in 1636? My sources all put Tomasso of Savoy in command of the army that nearly reached Paris.

Aldringer
Johann Graf von Aldringen
not included yet
Participated in the siege of Heidelberg in 1622. Gained his first merits by skillfully defending the bridge of Dessau against repeated attacks for almost a month until Wallenstein's arrival and the famous battle. Captured Plauen in 1627. Took part in the War of Mantuan succession under Collalto. Invaded Wirtemberg with an own army thereafter. Distinguished himself in the battle of Nürnberg, and was praised enthusiastically by Wallenstein. While Wallenstein turned north after the battle, he defended Bavaria against Horn throughout 1632, retook Landsberg and Güntzburg. Switched from the Emperor's to the Bavarian army in
1633. Successfully assaulted Kempten in January 1633. Quite successful in slowing down Horn, however had to retreat gradually when Horn's army was joined by that of Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar. United his army with the Spanish forces of the Duque de Feria in autumn 1633. Together, the Bavarian and Spanish army took Konstanz and Breisach. Gathered an army of 10000 men in Bavaria in 1634 and managed to recover Straubing. Killed in the assault on Regensburg on July 22nd 1634.
serves: 1633 - July 22nd 1634
rank: 1
stats:
suggested: maneuver 3, shock 3, fire 3, siege 1

And what oyu haven't said here is that the fall of Breisach was very important to the war, and that it was one of the strongest forts in Germany (although it had obviously already been lost ot the Hapsburgs).

Mercy
Franz Freiherr von Mercy
included in EU2
First mentioned as an officer under Tilly in 1631. Appointed commander of a Bavarian army on September 27th 1638. Forced Baner to retreat to Bohemia in 1640 and 1641. Responsible for the brillant victories at Tuttlingen in 1643 and at Herbsthausen in 1645, both against the French. By holding Wirtemberg, he prevented the French and Swedish army from uniting. Shot during the battle for Allerheim (that was won due to his brillant planning) on August 3rd 1645. Paradox certainly underrates him, he had an almost clean record and definitely was one of the better leaders of the TYW. I'd thus give him at least 3-3-3-0, even a 4 in either shock or fire might not be over the top.
serves: September 27th 1638 - August 3rd 1645
rank: 1
stats:
currently: maneuver 1, shock 3, fire 3, siege 0
suggested: maneuver 3, shock 3, fire 3, siege 0

Seems even a mite conservative.

 

[Twoflower]

It was just a thought that appeared to me looking at your work. The system you describe would be great if it works, Maybe I should try to test it....

I just tried it. If a monarch is not given rank 0, he is treated like an ordinary leader, i.e. receives the regular ranks. I think it might be a good thing to do if it's done consistently...and of course we would need to make sure, that, save some necessary exceptions, no ordinary leader for a country that only has rank 1 or rank 2 monarch leaders gets a better rank.
Leaders for other countries having a higher rank would however be quite historical, if you consider e.g. that Max Emanuel of Bavaria served under or on equal rank as French field marshalls or that Eberhard Ludwig of Wirtemberg was inferior to Prince Eugen in the Imperial army.

 

[Twoflower]

I'd agree that his reputation isn't as good as it probably ought to be. Heidelburg was a very well known siege, but didn't it drag on forever? He does deserve (military) credit for Magdeburg though. What are the stats of some of his other opponents, in particular Thurn and Mansfeld? Those drive my opinion of whether he ought to get 5's or not.

Mansfeld (whom Tilly dominated except for at Mingolsheim, and eventually defeated) has 2-3-4-0 (shock 4), Christian of Anhalt 3-2-2-0, Thurn 3-3-2-0. Christian of Brunswick (against whom he won Stadtlohn) is not in right now (but should probably be, and would get 3s IMO). Christian of Denmark, decisively and brillantly defeated by Tilly at Lutter, is 2-3-3-1. Considering this, at least fire 5 cannot be justified (since all his opponents have 3 or worse), shock 5 depends on whether we think he was that much better than Mansfeld or not. I am inclined to think so, despite the one defeat where
he was surprised and had less and quite exhausted troops. Tilly needs to make quite a difference, considering that White Mountain, Stadtlohn and Lutter were battles with about equal or bad odds that turned into stunning, devastating victories.

What are Saxe-Weimar's stats in the game? They ought to be OK, but that would push my opinion here. Jankau was the decisive battle of the late part of the war. And that was against Wrangel wasn't it? What was his role in the invasion of France in 1636? My sources all put Tomasso of Savoy in command of the army that nearly reached Paris.

Bernhard has 3-4-4-1. The four in shock for Werth might be too much, I agree Werth was a great cavalry commander, but not exactly that useful as an independent army leader (which is why Mercy was prefered to him as Bavaria's supreme commander in 1642). The invasion basically was Werth's idea, though you are quite right that he did not command it. 3-3-2-1 might be more fitting.

And what oyu haven't said here is that the fall of Breisach was very important to the war, and that it was one of the strongest forts in Germany (although it had obviously already been lost ot the Hapsburgs).

Are you suggesting a 2 in siege for Aldringer? Won't be too unbalancing since the only serves for a year anyway, and as can be told from how many big cities and fortresses he managed to take in that short term, he was rather good at conducting sieges and assaults.

Seems even a mite conservative.

Yes, I agree. Mercy was outstanding enough to deserve at least one 4 (perhaps even two). Until his death he was by far the most useful general fighting on the catholic side in the late part of the war.

 

[Norrefeldt]

I like the idea for leader ranking you have talked about. Might be worth doing, the job would be doable I think, since it's not like renumbering events where a lot can go wrong, nor as exstensive.

 

[Arilou]

Jankau was Torstensson, not Wrangel.

Tilly should definately be upgraded, Shock rather than fire IMHO (he was dominated by GIIA when it came to firepower but his charge managed to rout the saxons.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Mansfeld (whom Tilly dominated except for at Mingolsheim, and eventually defeated) has 2-3-4-0 (shock 4), Christian of Anhalt 3-2-2-0, Thurn 3-3-2-0. Christian of Brunswick (against whom he won Stadtlohn) is not in right now (but should probably be, and would get 3s IMO). Christian of Denmark, decisively and brillantly defeated by Tilly at Lutter, is 2-3-3-1. Considering this, at least fire 5 cannot be justified (since all his opponents have 3 or worse), shock 5 depends on whether we think he was that much better than Mansfeld or not. I am inclined to think so, despite the one defeat where
he was surprised and had less and quite exhausted troops. Tilly needs to make quite a difference, considering that White Mountain, Stadtlohn and Lutter were battles with about equal or bad odds that turned into stunning, devastating victories.

I agree that he definitely should be better than Mansfeld, although I'm not so sure that Christian of Brunswick warrants 3's. So yeah, shock 5 seems about right. Still won't rank with Gustavus.

Edit: although why would Masfeld get movement 2? If there is one thing he did very well it was keep his armies intact and forage when he had little organized support. Seems strange.

 

[Norrefeldt]

We need a playing tip section for the Habsburgs. All the lands they inherit, and why they start as they do. Our setup differs a lot from vanilla game setup and questions on this pops up every now and then. Twoflower, could you do something, or is there someone who volunteers?

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Tilly should definately be upgraded, Shock rather than fire IMHO (he was dominated by GIIA when it came to firepower but his charge managed to rout the saxons.

I'm not so sure that this is right. Even at Breitenfeld it was the combination of the success of the Swedish cavalry with that of the infantry that caused his downfall. The Saxons were pretty raw troops in 1630 (relative to the Swedes and Imprialists anyway).

If you look at other decisive victories of Tilly (White Mountain, Lutter) it was the infantry that was key.

I just tried it. If a monarch is not given rank 0, he is treated like an ordinary leader, i.e. receives the regular ranks. I think it might be a good thing to do if it's done consistently...and of course we would need to make sure, that, save some necessary exceptions, no ordinary leader for a country that only has rank 1 or rank 2 monarch leaders gets a better rank.
Leaders for other countries having a higher rank would however be quite historical, if you consider e.g. that Max Emanuel of Bavaria served under or on equal rank as French field marshalls or that Eberhard Ludwig of Wirtemberg was inferior to Prince Eugen in the Imperial army.

Won't this cause confusion when he has the monarch icon and is outranked by some "3-star" general? I think the monarchs ought to be rank 0, because I find siege stealing by the AI very entertaining

Seriously I'm not sure that it's even justified. We can't presume to know that (for example) Würtemburg will be smaller than Austria in any given game. And while Max Emmanuel served with Villars, he certainly never accepted to serve under him (although this was pretty common behaviour with the French generals too). As opposed to MaX Emmanuel I could suggest Charles of Lorraine. More often than not, the minor princes were very much insistent on their dignity and rank when on campaign, and were a real pain in the neck for their allies. I view the siege stealing as representing this, and as representing the difficulties of coalition warfare, and finally, to some extent, offsetting the disproportionately large armies that small countries can contribute to an alliance (by which I mean a monarch leader makes them a much less desirable ally).

 

[unmerged(12544)]

Problem:
-event HAB179016 and HAB3749 create a COT in Austria even when HAB does not own it.

Solution:
-event HAB179016 and HAB3749 modified and a new event for the COT creation


#The Abdication of Charles V
event = {
id = 179016
trigger = {
vassal = { country = SPA country = HAB }
}
random = no
country = HAB
name = "The Emperor's Abdication"
desc = "In 1556 when Karl abdicated his imperial status, the Austrian line of the House of Habsburg gained total independence from the Spanish House of Habsburg. Philip, Karl's son, was to rule Spain and the Netherlands, while Austria and the position as Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire fell to Ferdinand's decendants. In Ferdinand's last years he ruled as the equal of his nephew, Philip of Spain. Vienna became the political and economic center of the holdings of the Austrian Habsburgs."
style = 1
date = { day = 30 month = september year = 1556 }
action_a = {
name = "As you wish, brother."
command = { type = breakvassal which = SPA }
command = { type = stability value = 3 }
command = { type = relation which = SPA value = 200 }
}
}

event = {

id = 3749
trigger = {
NOT = {
vassal = { country = SPA country = HAB }
}
exists = SPA

}
random = no
country = HAB
name = "EVENTNAME3749"
desc = "In 1556 when Karl abdicated his imperial status, the Austrian line of the House of Habsburg gained total independence from the Spanish House of Habsburg. Philip, Karl's son, was to rule Spain and the Netherlands, while Austria and the position as Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire fell to Ferdinand's decendants. In Ferdinand's last years he ruled as the equal of his nephew, Philip of Spain. Vienna became the political and economic center of the holdings of the Austrian Habsburgs."
style = 2

date = { day = 30 month = september year = 1556 }

action_a ={ #We go seperate ways as Brothers#
name = "ACTIONNAME3749A"
command = { type = stability value = 1 }
}
}

event = {
id = 179035
trigger = {
owned = { province = 351 data = HAB }
}
random = no
country = HAB
name = "???????????"
desc = "??????????? Vienna became the political and economic center of the holdings of the Austrian Habsburgs."
style = 1
date = { day = 30 month = september year = 1556 }
deathdate = { day = 0 month = december year = 1819 }
action_a = {
name = "?????????????"
command = { type = capital which = 351 }
command = { type = cot which = 351 }
}
}

 

[Norrefeldt]

I assume you have seen it happen. Is this when Austria has had it's capital moved and then lost Vienna? AFAIK this is the event for moving the capital back to Vienna, and there is no backup? Then that second event is really needed, to make sure it is moved when there's a possibility!

As it's scripted now you will always get your capital moved to Vienna with the second event, even if it was there already from the first. Perhaps better to have those two lines removed from the first event (dunno what happens if you place a cot where there is one already) and have a separate event for moving the capital. IMO the deathdate should be 1819.

EDIT: 179035 is their next free ID. We could wait a few days for comments, and then I suggest it goes in at once, since it's a bug.

 

[unmerged(12544)]

I assume you have seen it happen. Is this when Austria has had it's capital moved and then lost Vienna?

As TUR I did own Austria and got a COT by that event. The capital was in Innsbruck. HAB really has a lot of capital moving events.

Then that second event is really needed, to make sure it is moved when there's a possibility!

Its function is to give HAB the chance to reconquer Austria and get the COT.

I have modified my post.

 

[FrenchCrusader]

There are many free tags
so some of you want to create fantasy countries why not...
but why did you remove Strassburg?
It should not belong to any country in the game! nor to the Burguinions nor to Tyrol nor to the Habsburgs
and it should also be much more populated and richer!
and I can find some leaders and some events as some people tried to do this on the french forum

20000 inhabitants in 1440 (and strong walls)

many people like Erasme spent a lot of time there

1434 Gutenberg invented how to print bookd

1439 + 1444 the armagnacs looted ALsace

1469-74 alliance against the bourguinions : "l'union d'en bas" from Tyrol and some swiss cities are together with strasbourg and the "decapole" (union of ten cities)

1525 war of the laborers (25000 laborers looted alsace and south of germany) and are exterminated by the duc of Lorraine

1530 strasbourg is "open doors" for religious minorities (protestants)

1538 creation of the "gymnase" the university by Jakob Sturm the stadtmeister who lead strasbourg for 30 years

1547 defeat of Muhlberg : strasbourg must send in exil the protestant thinker Martin Bucer to calm down the emperor

1592 war of the eveque : the church is loosing influence against an alliance of burgers and nobles and soon after the burgers send also away the nobles

war of religion : the Swedens looted Alsace

1681 : strasbourg becomes french

1798 : the whole alsace becomes french

 

[Khephren]

1434 Gutenberg invented how to print bookd

He actually only experimented with printing in Strassburg. It wasn't until after 1444, when he moved back to Mainz, that he perfected the process and when on to print his Bible.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

He actually only experimented with printing in Strassburg. It wasn't until after 1444, when he moved back to Mainz, that he perfected the process and when on to print his Bible.

I thought the issue was that he couldn't secure financial backing in Strassbourg, so he went went seeking financial support.

Crusader, I'd have added the attempts by the Anabaptists to set up their New Jeruselem in Strassburg in the 1530's before they moved on to Münster. But the main problem for Strassburg is that we don't have any other city states in the game (Bremen is the archbisopric, not the city). They are hard to represent in EU terms.

 

[Khephren]

I thought the issue was that he couldn't secure financial backing in Strassbourg, so he went went seeking financial support.

OK I thought it was because he was sued for renegging on a promise to marry ( or something like that ) and left Strassburg.....I'm most likely wrong

 

[Twoflower]

Crusader, I'd have added the attempts by the Anabaptists to set up their New Jeruselem in Strassburg in the 1530's before they moved on to Münster. But the main problem for Strassburg is that we don't have any other city states in the game (Bremen is the archbisopric, not the city). They are hard to represent in EU terms.

However, it was agreed on in the last major discussion on the setup in Germany (the one that happened in MKJ's "Asia" thread) to have an independent country, representing the independent Alsatian cities, in Alsace.
Actually the new setup proposed there (with an independent Alsace, Tyrol owning Baden, the Palatinate owning Pfalz and Würzburg, Mainz being reintroduced and Bohemia getting Ostmarch) was pretty much accepted as a consensus solution by everyone and might be ready to be put into the next version. Would there be opposition to this?

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Not from me.

I'm most likely wrong

Me too.

 

[FrenchCrusader]

He actually only experimented with printing in Strassburg. It wasn't until after 1444, when he moved back to Mainz, that he perfected the process and when on to print his Bible.

as far as I studied, he printed 20 or 30 bibles in strassburg, before having too much debts
You can see that in his first bible which were luxuous : some letters are in red and the beginning of each book of the bible is a drawing, but after he became in the red and he had to print only in black and give up the drawings
finally he left the city

that's what I learned, but I can be wrong!