AGCEEP beta development: Germany & Austria

[Twoflower]

Hmm, I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be easier and perhaps even better to restore the Bishopric of Straßburg instead of creating a country representing the Alsatian Décapole. I mean, this is much less work - we already have monarchs, graphics etc -, probably not less realistic - after all the Bishop of Straßburg was the Landgrave of Lower Alsace and thus the theoretical suzerain of northern Alsace, owned about a quarter of the land, and similarly to what is done with Cologne, Bremen and Mainz, the state could represent Bishopric and free city at the same time - and Straßburg certainly is the most important place in Alsace. What do you think? I suppose hardly anybody cares at all , but please, just give me some opinions.

 

[unmerged(21523)]

Sounds good to me, Strassburg was certainly an important city at the time and including the free city/bishopric is no less ahistorical than states like Cologne and Bremen. I don't suppose there's a place somehwere where we could stick in the Elector of Trier, it'd be nice to have all the electors in the game.

 

[unmerged(9404)]

Sounds good to me, Strassburg was certainly an important city at the time and including the free city/bishopric is no less ahistorical than states like Cologne and Bremen. I don't suppose there's a place somehwere where we could stick in the Elector of Trier, it'd be nice to have all the electors in the game.

If you look at some of the old discussions (I believe in the GCEEP GErmany thread) there was considerable discussion on country setup to include it. In the end I believe it was concluded that the province in EU2 could never represent the reallife situation with all electors.

@Twoflower A good change, a country representing one state is imo better than a country representing a collection of cities.

 

[unmerged(12680)]

Twoflower, those ideas sound good.

Sounds good to me, Strassburg was certainly an important city at the time and including the free city/bishopric is no less ahistorical than states like Cologne and Bremen. I don't suppose there's a place somehwere where we could stick in the Elector of Trier, it'd be nice to have all the electors in the game.

If we can get our hands on Inferis' map editor at some point, we might. Otherwise I'm afraid we will have to do without..

 

[Twoflower]

Cleaning up Austria's events

Austria's event file is an awful mess right now. Since the events are hardly sorted in any way, it is a pain to search for something, and several of the events badly need to be reworked. Therefore I'd like to propose the following things:

• all events in AGCEEP_Specific_Austria.eue should be sorted chronologically in order to allow for better overview and easier searching. I can do this and submit the sorted file.
• event 89023, the Annexation of Friesland by Karl V, should be deleted. This event is a Burgundian one and has already been moved to the Burgundian file a long time ago. The event is just redundant (although it appears to me this one must have been added back in one of the recent versions; Jester, why is that?)
• the Spanish wedding event (3179) is just awfully ahistorical. Historically, the centers of Charles V's empire were Brussels, Gent, Toledo and Barcelona, not Vienna. The current event is for several reasons quite bad. I'd like to remove it for now and replace it by a better sequence for the connection between Spain and Austria (presumably four events: the double marriage in 1494, the rule of Philipp the Handsome in Castile after the death of Isabel the Catholic, the ascension of Charles V in Austria, the Edicts of Worms and Brussels that gave Austria to Ferdinand).
• it is no good idea to vassalise Austria to Spain in 1521. This is obviously inacceptable in MP, the Austrian AI is hurt quite badly by being vassalised and in AI-AI situations it often results in Spain diplo-annexing Austria, which cannot be desirable. If we want to ensure, or almost ensure, that Austria will ally with Spain, we could employ the method that is already used for Burgundy by the Treaty of Arras events - Austria is vassalised, added to the Spanish alliance and then immediately, by another event, cancels the vassalage and gets 6 stability and 6 diplomats.
• the vassalisation of Burgundy to Austria in 1476 is probably even worse than the vassalisation of Austria to Spain in 1521, at least in my experience. After the event, Burgundy is faced with a war against France that it usually cannot win if it has been vassalised to Austria. In my games, I almost always see Burgundy destroyed within a few years after the event. Thus I'd suggest using the "Treaty of Arras" - method here as well.
• the Hapsburg Inheritance of Milano event is extremely questionable. The country that came to control Milan in 1500 after the capture of Ludovico Sforza was France, because it was France that had seized the Duchy. Giving Milan to Austria in 1500 as historical choice cannot be justified in any way. A human will always choose to inherit instead of vassalising, hence the consequence of this event in MP is usually that Milan is an Austrian possession after 1500. Considering that Maximilian never even tried to claim Milan, that the conflict for Milan before 1525 was between France and the Sforzas and that France already gets a shield on Milan by another event (Louis XII's invasion of Milan) and should have to conquer it rather than inheriting it, the only acceptable solution is to completely delete this crappy event and the two events it triggers (event 3706 from major_mlo.txt - this file doesn't need to be included anymore -, event 3181 from AGCEEP_Specific_Austria.eue and event 3718 from AGCEEP_Specific_France.eue).

 

[unmerged(6159)]

the Hapsburg Inheritance of Milano event is extremely questionable. The country that came to control Milan in 1500 after the capture of Ludovico Sforza was France, because it was France that had seized the Duchy. Giving Milan to Austria in 1500 as historical choice cannot be justified in any way. A human will always choose to inherit instead of vassalising, hence the consequence of this event in MP is usually that Milan is an Austrian possession after 1500. Considering that Maximilian never even tried to claim Milan, that the conflict for Milan before 1525 was between France and the Sforzas and that France already gets a shield on Milan by another event (Louis XII's invasion of Milan) and should have to conquer it rather than inheriting it, the only acceptable solution is to completely delete this crappy event and the two events it triggers (event 3706 from major_mlo.txt - this file doesn't need to be included anymore -, event 3181 from AGCEEP_Specific_Austria.eue and event 3718 from AGCEEP_Specific_France.eue).

We do need to make this work better, and I agree that for now the best would be to simply remove the events for now. I'd suggest that they simply be commented out for now as place holders - something needs to be done about Milan in the early 16th century.

And the situation is not as simple as you claim. Sure in 1499 Louis XII invaded Milan based on his being the only legitimate decendent of Bernabo Visconti, Duke of Milan. This event is already handled in the mod. So 1500 is the wrong date. However, the Spanish and Austrians did participate in the Holy League of 1510 that drove the French out of Milan and put Massimiliano Sforza on the throne. And in 1525 it was Charles V who deposed Francesco Sforza and took possesion of Milan through his rights as Emperor (and obviously because his army was in possesion ). Francesco became Duke of Milan in 1529 only because he had no heirs and the duchy would therefore revert to Austria/Spain when he died.

It is planty complicated, but the fact is that the Sforzas died out. When that happened there were only two possible dynastic results - the Orleanist claim of France might be upheld, or the fief could revert to the Emperor. Legally France clearly had the stronger case (as it did originally in 1447) but that's beside the point. I suppose hypothetically Sforza could have adopted another heir...

The vanilla way of handling this is not so bad really. Something needs to happen to Milan at this time, and it ought to end up Austrian or Spanish.

 

[Twoflower]

I was of course not saying that there should be no event that gives the Hapsburgs a claim or even lets them inherit. However the event should in no way go to Austria, but to Spain. Neither Maximilian nor Ferdinand ever tried to claim Milan, thus Austria inheriting, vassalising or getting a shield on Milan is completely wrong.
And it is also wrong for the event that lets the Hapsburgs inherit to be in 1500, since the Sforzas died out only in 1535. In the early part of the Italian wars, the Hapsburgs got involved as the Emperor protecting the rights of a prince of the Empire (and yes, just in case you nitpick, I'm aware of the fact that Maximilian had invested the King of France with Milan in 1494 ), not as King of Spain or Archduke of Austria trying to expand his personal possessions.
The vanilla way of handling this is quite bad actually, because it is inaccurate, and it is even worse to use it in the AGCEEP because we have implemented a much more exact and correct discrimination between Charles V's Empire and the holdings of Ferdinand than the arbitrary, unreflected, ignorant division between Austria-Burgundy and Spain that Paradox has.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

I was of course not saying that there should be no event that gives the Hapsburgs a claim or even lets them inherit. However the event should in no way go to Austria, but to Spain. Neither Maximilian nor Ferdinand ever tried to claim Milan, thus Austria inheriting, vassalising or getting a shield on Milan is completely wrong.

Frederick III did. Still your point stands.

And it is also wrong for the event that lets the Hapsburgs inherit to be in 1500, since the Sforzas died out only in 1535. In the early part of the Italian wars, the Hapsburgs got involved as the Emperor protecting the rights of a prince of the Empire, not as King of Spain or Archduke of Austria trying to expand his personal possessions.

There is a huge grey region between those two. In reality the Hapsburgs felt threatened by the expansion of French influence in Italy, and that's why they got involved. And they weren't above advancing their own interests in Italy, as the lague of Cambrai war shows (don't forget that that war was initiated by Maximillian). Still, you're right, 1500 is bad.

The vanilla way of handling this is quite bad actually, because it is inaccurate, and it is even worse to use it in the AGCEEP because we have implemented a much more exact and correct representation of Charles V's Empire than the arbitrary, unreflected, ignorant division between Austria-Burgundy and Spain that Paradox has.

How so? An Austrian inheritance in 1535 isn't entirely wrong. Especially if it's coupled with an abdication event that gives Milan to Spain. Of course it's unsatisfactory, but it's much better than the 1500 solution. I don't see what the way Burgundy is handled has to do with things in 1535. And our representation of Charles' empire is, in my humble opinion, every bit as arbitrary and wrong as the vanilla way. That's unavoidable, sadly.

 

[Norrefeldt]

all events in AGCEEP_Specific_Austria.eue should be sorted chronologically in order to allow for better overview and easier searching. I can do this and submit the sorted file.

Should be done. Will get you some extra points in the 'modders book of good deeds'.

it is no good idea to vassalise Austria to Spain in 1521. This is obviously inacceptable in MP, the Austrian AI is hurt quite badly by being vassalised and in AI-AI situations it often results in Spain diplo-annexing Austria, which cannot be desirable. If we want to ensure, or almost ensure, that Austria will ally with Spain, we could employ the method that is already used for Burgundy by the Treaty of Arras events - Austria is vassalised, added to the Spanish alliance and then immediately, by another event, cancels the vassalage and gets 6 stability and 6 diplomats.

That vassalisation might also lead to an annexation. So removing it is a very good idea. We should be more carefule with vassalisations, and I think we have discovered the downsides.

he vassalisation of Burgundy to Austria in 1476 is probably even worse than the vassalisation of Austria to Spain in 1521, at least in my experience. After the event, Burgundy is faced with a war against France that it usually cannot win if it has been vassalised to Austria. In my games, I almost always see Burgundy destroyed within a few years after the event. Thus I'd suggest using the "Treaty of Arras" - method here as well.

Same here.

the Hapsburg Inheritance of Milano event is extremely questionable. The country that came to control Milan in 1500 after the capture of Ludovico Sforza was France, because it was France that had seized the Duchy. Giving Milan to Austria in 1500 as historical choice cannot be justified in any way. A human will always choose to inherit instead of vassalising, hence the consequence of this event in MP is usually that Milan is an Austrian possession after 1500. Considering that Maximilian never even tried to claim Milan, that the conflict for Milan before 1525 was between France and the Sforzas and that France already gets a shield on Milan by another event (Louis XII's invasion of Milan) and should have to conquer it rather than inheriting it, the only acceptable solution is to completely delete this crappy event and the two events it triggers (event 3706 from major_mlo.txt - this file doesn't need to be included anymore -, event 3181 from AGCEEP_Specific_Austria.eue and event 3718 from AGCEEP_Specific_France.eue).

No matter what you do in this case I don't think the original event is a good one. The player takes the ahistorical choice in 99,9% of the cases and the AI makes a much worse choice. It's too much of a no-brainer: Either it should be better balanced, or, there should only be the historical option.

 

[Twoflower]

How so? An Austrian inheritance in 1535 isn't entirely wrong. Especially if it's coupled with an abdication event that gives Milan to Spain. Of course it's unsatisfactory, but it's much better than the 1500 solution. I don't see what the way Burgundy is handled has to do with things in 1535. And our representation of Charles' empire is, in my humble opinion, every bit as arbitrary and wrong as the vanilla way. That's unavoidable, sadly.

I don't see how a division on the base of what Charles owned and what Ferdinand owned, thus a division that actually existed is as bad as a division that simply did not exist. Ferdinand had become hereditary and sovereign ruler of Austria and Wirtemberg in 1521, and he, not Charles, was elected King of Hungary and Bohemia, thus I do not see how representing his possessions as a separate possession is arbitrary and wrong.
And the way Burgundy is handled has to do with things in 1535 because Burgundy is made part of Spain due to being a possession of Charles V. Milan became a possession of Charles V, not of Ferdinand, as well, and therefore has to be inherited by Spain, not Austria.

 

[Twoflower]

That vassalisation might also lead to an annexation. So removing it is a very good idea. We should be more carefule with vassalisations, and I think we have discovered the downsides.

Indeed. The 1521 vassalisation is also just a gamekiller in MP (have experienced it once).
The personal union events for Hungary and Bohemia in the 15th century should be reworked quite urgently, too. We should employ the "Treaty of Arras" method instead of permanent vassalisations there.

 

[Twoflower]

Four things have reduced the amount of wars in Germany significantly in my recent games, and I suggest these should be implemented soon:
1. Most relation entries in the scenario files for German countries among themselves should be removed. They were implemented to give German states better relations than normal, but with the changes to the standard relations in a newer patch, these make their relations worse than normal, which is neither the original intention of the changes nor good for the game. The only relations that should be in the files are +200 relations between the Hapsburg states (Austria, Styria and Tyrol), +200 relations between Austria and Bohemia, +200 relations between the Wittelsbach states (Bavaria, Palatinate and Luxembourg), +170 relations between the clerical states (Mainz, Cologne, Bremen, Strassburg) and +150 between all other countries that are allied to each other.
2. Several alliances should be added/changed in Germany. One of the main causes for ahistorical wars between German states is when one country that has a big alliance to back it up notices a neighbouring state without allies. Thus we need to make sure that there are less "mega-alliances" in Germany and no countries starting without an ally. The alliances I would suggest are:
- Brandenburg (leader), Saxony and Pomerania (Friedrich I of Brandenburg and those who helped him secure his country)
- Palatinate (leader), Bavaria and Luxembourg (Wittelsbach dynasty alliance)
- Hungary (leader), Bohemia and Austria (Emperor Sigismund and his ally and successor Albrecht of Austria, also after Sigismund's death the personal union between Austria, Bohemia and Hungary)
- Tyrol (leader), Styria, Wirtemberg and Strassburg (Leopoldine branch of the Hapsburgs and a representation of the various leagues founded in Swabia, actually Styria should have a separate alliance with Cilli if we are introducing Cilli. but for now this should be ok, although this is a rather large alliance and I'd suspect that bad things will still happen if Hungary or the Wittelsbach add Switzerland to their alliance and the standard dow of Tyrol on Switzerland happens)
- Stettin (leader) and Mecklenburg, who had opposed Friedrich I together and feuded against him again several times in the 1420s
- Hannover (leader) and Bremen (usually had good relations, most Archbishops of Bremen were either Welfs or at least appointed with big participation of the Welfs)
- Gelderland (leader) and Berg (Jülich dynasty alliance)
- Holstein (leader) and Oldenburg (the Schauenburg and Oldenburg dynasties were closely related to each other, so closely that Adolf VIII of Holstein when elected to the Danish throne recommended the Danish rigsrad to give the throne to his relative Christian of Oldenburg instead)
- Cleves remains allied to Burgundy
- Meißen (leader) and Hesse (the ancient alliance between the Landgraviates of Thuringia and Hesse, also the Wettins had helped Hesse against Mainz's numerous attempts to restore its sovereignity over Hesse during the 14th century)
- Cologne and Mainz (the Rhenanian Archbishoprics)
3. Some AIs need to be changed. Tyrol and Hanover should get peaceful.ai and BUR_generic AI (the one that Burgundy starts with) that right now is just lunatic and always starts a silly war against a German state in 1419 needs to have its combat list cleared up - the list should only include FLA.
4. Tyrol's core on Schwyz needs to be removed. Sure the Hapsburgs did have quite a valid claim to Swiss territories and tried to regain them, but a Hapsburg occupation of Swiss territories ranks among the most obvious cases where nationalism is absolutely justified, and more importantly Tyrol's wars against Switzerland are quite devastating to the game right now because Switzerland usually allies with either Bavaria or Hungary and this will drag the Hapsburgs into a big war, which will either make them annex several territories - which gives them BB and usually leads to them getting dragged into many more wars - or immediately lead to their destruction, especially when they have to fight Hungary. Ideally, there should be some events where the Hapsburg countries can regain the core and perhaps even convert Switzerland to German culture after a long time and severe revolts, but the core at gamestart that has the mentioned bad effects on the AI should go.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

1. Most relation entries in the scenario files for German countries among themselves should be removed. They were implemented to give German states better relations than normal, but with the changes to the standard relations in a newer patch, these make their relations worse than normal, which is neither the original intention of the changes nor good for the game. The only relations that should be in the files are...

Why not just take all the relations currently in the file and increase them by 125
across the board?

 

[Twoflower]

Why not just take all the relations currently in the file and increase them by 125
across the board?

Would you want all German states to have at least +175 relations with each other? That would completely disallow for differenciation between them. Already putting them all at +125 is quite a bad and ahistorical generalization, yet this seems to be intended by Paradox with the recent diplomatic changes and is also probably needed to discourage wars within the HRE. I'd like to have a room above +125 to represent relations between allies, special relations (e.g. those between the Bishoprics), the relations between states of the same dynasty and the relations between countries in personal union. Therefore I think just removing all relations that are not supposed to be special in any of the described ways and just the standard good, war-preventing relations between HRE states is better.

 

[Twoflower]

One more thing that could help the German states survive is a rework of the terrain in Germany. Right now, Northwest Germany is a large coherent plain bigger than the Hungarian Puszta (which should be the largest coherent plain in Europe). This is bad not only because it's inaccurate, but also because it makes these provinces easier to invade - no terrain is better for attackers, especially those who, like France and Poland, usually have cavalry-heavy armies, than plain and these provinces are also the easiest and fastest to siege. Combined with the high support levels and the bad fortresses in Germany (that both probably need to be changed too), this results in making Germany as vulnerable to a quick invasion as e.g. Hungary, and that is neither historical nor desirable from a gameplay point of view. I believe this was done on the base of a misunderstanding on the part of Paradox; North Germany is covered by the Norddeutsche Tiefebene which is called North German Plain in English. The North German Plain is however only a plain in the sense that it is a large area of low, flat land, it does not have the typical soil of a plain, instead its landscape is mostly quite marshy. Just wanted to explain that before starting to discuss possible changes to terrain province by province:

• Holstein: currently plain; there are some hills in the east, heaths with sandy ground in the centre and marshes in the west; I'd suggest marsh
• Bremen: landscape made up by marshes and geests, which are basically names for fertile and infertile marshy land, thus marsh
• Mecklenburg: currently plain; marshes on the coast, moors and lots of lakes in the interior, also quite hilly and with several forests; since we shouldn't have marshes in all of North Germany forest would be good
• Oldenburg: currently plain; the usual mix of marshes, moors, swamps and heaths, should have marsh
• Hannover: currently plain; this province is covered by the big and famous Lüneburger Heide (Lüneburg heath), definitely should be marsh
• Magdeburg: currently plain; the Altmark, which is what we have this represent, consists of flat land with lots of forests and some heaths; should be forest
• Brandenburg and Magdeburg: currently forest; should remain forest
• Hinterpommern and Vorpommern: currently marsh, should remain marsh
• Sachsen: currently forest; contains several mountain ranges - the western part of the Erzgebirge, Saxon Switzerland and the Zittau mountains -, however also the Elbe valley and in the north, around Leipzig, the very south of the North German Plain, thus the terrain could be mountains, but can also stay forest, which is probably better because even the mountains are not particularly high and the area as a whole is rather hilly than mountaineous
• Anhalt: currently plain; the small territory of the Dukes of Saxony-Wittenberg was covered mostly by forests, and that should be the province terrain
• Hessen: currently forest; quite hilly with several middle mountain ranges, but also the territory with the most forests in medieval Germany, thus forest can be kept
• Münster: currently plain; basically the Low Rhine area and the South of Westphalia. Quite a flat land, with a geography, climate and topography almost the same as in the neighbouring Netherlands, hence marsh
• Kleves: currently plain; the Duchy of Berg covers several mountain ranges (the Rhenanian Schiefergebirge, the Sauerland), and although the name (Berg means mountain) doesn't have anything to do with geography, it is said that it fits the geography pretty well; therefore mountain
• Köln: currently plain; the most important mark of the landscape are the Eifel mountains, which extend between the cities of Cologne and Trier and the valleys these are situated in and continue as the Ardennes in Belgium
• Pfalz: currently forest; most of the territory of the Rhine Palatinate left of the Rhine is covered by the Pfälzerwald (Palatine Forest), Germany's largest coherent forest, the part right of the Rhine contains the south of the Odenwald, another big forest area, so no need to change the terrain
• Mainz: currently forest; the area around Mainz, called Rheinhessen, is in fact the part with the least forests in all of Germany, which is partly due to massive cultivation, but also due to the fact that there never was a particularly big forest area. The Archbishopric of Mainz also included territories on the right side of the Rhine (which is where the province is located!) and in Thuringia, though, and these do include forests, hills and mountains, which is why I think sticking with forest could be justified (and since this is IMO better for gameplay, this should be done)
• Alsace: currently forest; includes the Vosges and the flat, fertile Rhine valley; forest is a good compromise I suppose
• Baden and Württemberg: both currently forest; these provinces include the Black Forest, so this terrain is ok for both
• Würzburg: currently forest; the Upper Palatinate is rather hilly and covered by smaller mountain ranges, several lakes and forests, most notably the Oberpfälzer Wald (Upper Palatine Forest), so forest is fine
• Ansbach: currently forest; small mountain ranges, forests and the highly fertile plains in the Danube valley called Gäuboden; forest is best to represent that
• Bayern: currently forest; the Bavarian Alps and the Zugspitze, Germany's highest mountain, are situated there; hence mountain might be preferable

In summary, the changes I'm suggesting are:
- Holstein, Bremen, Oldenburg, Münster and Hannover from plains to marsh
- Mecklenburg, Magdeburg and Anhalt from plains to forest
- Kleves and Köln from plains to mountain
- Bavaria from forest to mountain

I'm aware that ditching the plains provinces in North Germany completely is quite a drastic change, but I think it is a change to the better because it makes attacking and conquering German provinces harder and is more accurate - the large plains in Germany were IMHO implemented on the base of a big misconception regarding the North German Plain. If we have to keep plains provinces in Germany, these should be along the Rhine (as I said, possibly Mainz, and also with some justification Alsace and Pfalz, but that's basically it already). Please state your opinion on this people.

 

[Archaalen]

This sounds like a very interesting idea. It would definitely give the minors an edge where they need it, on defense. This idea should be seriously looked at for implementation.

 

[Twoflower]

This sounds like a very interesting idea. It would definitely give the minors an edge where they need it, on defense. This idea should be seriously looked at for implementation.

I am not suggesting this mainly for gameplay reasons though. Of course this should be a good thing for gameplay - generally the minors would have an edge in defending themselves and additionally making costy cavalry less efficient is also a good thing for the minors and will give majors like France, Burgundy and Poland who usually have quite much cavalry a harder time. However also just judging by what would be accurate there should be much less, probably even no, plains provinces in Germany, especially not in the provinces forming the North German Plain, because plains provinces, comparing to what generally is deemed land with open plains, like Hungary, and considering the game effects, are supposed to be land that is very vulnerable to invasion and easily overrun - and this simply does not quite fit Germany, especially not the "plain" in North Germany with its numerous natural obstacles - marshy ground, tides, lakes, rivers etc.

 

[unmerged(12680)]

Most of this looks good, although I have my doubts that the entire German coast should be marsh I could easily accept it.

My biggest gripe is with making Bayern, Köln and Kleve mountains.

The Bayerisches Alpes lie at the extreme south of the province, most of the province was always forest. München and the "centre" of Bayern was always more to the north, like halfway between the Alps and the Danube wasn't it? I would recommend keeping forest.

As for Köln and Kleve, the areas were certainly hilly, but I have a hard time buying them being mountainous in the same sense as the Alps, Caucasus or even the Sudeten or Massif Central... Since EU2 (unfortunately) lacks a "hilly" terrain type I would suggest making them forests as a compromise, plains is just as wrong as mountains IMHO.

If we make Bayern/Köln/Kleves mountains it could be justified to do the same to half the provinces in the world... Half of Sweden, just about all of Iberia, all of Anatolia, all of Italy between the Po and Naples, all of the Maghreb, all of Mexico, most of China... I just don't think they are really deserving of mountains, but should be made into (or kept as) forests.

 

[Twoflower]

Most of this looks good, although I have my doubts that the entire German coast should be marsh I could easily accept it.

My biggest gripe is with making Bayern, Köln and Kleve mountains.

The Bayerisches Alpes lie at the extreme south of the province, most of the province was always forest. München and the "centre" of Bayern was always more to the north, like halfway between the Alps and the Danube wasn't it? I would recommend keeping forest.

As for Köln and Kleve, the areas were certainly hilly, but I have a hard time buying them being mountainous in the same sense as the Alps, Caucasus or even the Sudeten or Massif Central... Since EU2 (unfortunately) lacks a "hilly" terrain type I would suggest making them forests as a compromise, plains is just as wrong as mountains IMHO.

If we make Bayern/Köln/Kleves mountains it could be justified to do the same to half the provinces in the world... Half of Sweden, just about all of Iberia, all of Anatolia, all of Italy between the Po and Naples, all of the Maghreb, all of Mexico, most of China... I just don't think they are really deserving of mountains, but should be made into (or kept as) forests.

Yes, you are of course right It just looked sorta bad to have all of Germany as either forests or marshes, but that's probably how it should be.
As for the marshes in North Germany, this of course depends on your definition of "marsh", "plains" and "forest". The North German coast doesn't have particularly many forests, it certainly is not an "open land" ideal for invasions like e.g. the Hungarian Puszta (look e.g. at how long the Frisian princes or the Republic of Dithmarschen were able to defend themselves despite being weak and tiny against far superior invaders).

 

[Twoflower]

Most of this looks good, although I have my doubts that the entire German coast should be marsh I could easily accept it.

My biggest gripe is with making Bayern, Köln and Kleve mountains.

The Bayerisches Alpes lie at the extreme south of the province, most of the province was always forest. München and the "centre" of Bayern was always more to the north, like halfway between the Alps and the Danube wasn't it? I would recommend keeping forest.

As for Köln and Kleve, the areas were certainly hilly, but I have a hard time buying them being mountainous in the same sense as the Alps, Caucasus or even the Sudeten or Massif Central... Since EU2 (unfortunately) lacks a "hilly" terrain type I would suggest making them forests as a compromise, plains is just as wrong as mountains IMHO.

If we make Bayern/Köln/Kleves mountains it could be justified to do the same to half the provinces in the world... Half of Sweden, just about all of Iberia, all of Anatolia, all of Italy between the Po and Naples, all of the Maghreb, all of Mexico, most of China... I just don't think they are really deserving of mountains, but should be made into (or kept as) forests.

Yes, you are of course right It just looked sorta bad to have all of Germany as either forests or marshes, but that's probably how it should be.
As for the marshes in North Germany, this of course depends on your definition of "marsh", "plains" and "forest". The North German coast doesn't have particularly many forests, it certainly is not an "open land" ideal for invasions like e.g. the Hungarian Puszta (look e.g. at how long the Frisian princes or the Republic of Dithmarschen were able to defend themselves despite being weak and tiny against far superior invaders) and the ground is almost completely swampy or sandy, with the landscape characterised by different types of marshy land - bogs, heaths, marshes, geests, bördes and moraines. Also the landscape is quite similar to that of the Netherlands, which have marshes right now.