AGCEEP beta development: Germany & Austria

[unmerged(12680)]

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.

...while I actually think all that green/turquoise looks pretty good! I've always assosiated Germany with forests, so it looks and feels very "right".

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).

Very true, of course. I was mostly thinking if every province should be made into marsh, though it might be or the best (on a related note, which terrain have we now decided upon for Frisia? Plains, forest or marsh?).

 

[Twoflower]

Very true, of course. I was mostly thinking if every province should be made into marsh, though it might be or the best (on a related note, which terrain have we now decided upon for Frisia? Plains, forest or marsh?).

Friesland should have marsh I think. The coast is constantly flooded, which produces clay lands there, while the interior has lots of fens and lakes.
Gelderland should probably be forest btw, considering that it includes the Veluwe, the biggest forest area of the Netherlands.

 

[unmerged(9404)]

Isn't a "heide" a big flat plain? Thus shouldn't Hannover (luneburger heide) remain plains?

 

[unmerged(12680)]

Isn't a "heide" a big flat plain? Thus shouldn't Hannover (luneburger heide) remain plains?

No. Even today Lünburger Heide is anything BUT a nice flat plain.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Isn't "heide" "heath"? So that the "heide" is like the English heaths, uplands.

Gelderland should probably be forest btw, considering that it includes the Veluwe, the biggest forest area of the Netherlands.

But the Veluwe is way off on the east, and most of Gelderland is polder. Forest in the Netherlands doesn't seem right to me, and Gelderland was intensively cultivated (mostly farmlands, much of which should be polder).

 

[Twoflower]

Isn't "heide" "heath"? So that the "heide" is like the English heaths, uplands.

Yep, "heide" is heath. It's a little more special than just uplands though I think, it is basically exhausted, acid soil with a very specific type of vegetation. The English and Scottish heaths currently are plains, though. Do you think this is right? Perhaps it might be desirable to agree on some general standards on treating certain types of terrain. It seems to me that Paradox has generally distributed goods on the base of the assumption that plains should be the default terrain type, is that really good?

But the Veluwe is way off on the east, and most of Gelderland is polder. Forest in the Netherlands doesn't seem right to me, and Gelderland was intensively cultivated (mostly farmlands, much of which should be polder).

Many polders didn't exist yet in 1419, though, and were only built after the Netherlands had become independent in the big impoldering efforts of the 17th century. So should the terrain be marsh?

 

[Twoflower]

Err, it has been a while since the terrain changes were discussed, and I'm wondering if I should submit them. I think there was agreement that it would be good to avoid having any plains in Germany (in order to provide the German states with good defensive terrain); the only one province where there is some incertainty is Hannover, because the decision there depends on whether we consider a heath to be plain or marsh, and that decision would logically not only affect Hannover with the Lüneburg Heath, but also, and especially, the heath provinces in Britain. So, should province that are covered mostly by heaths be plain or marsh provinces?
Unless there is objection to the rest of the terrain changes, I'm gonna submit them next week.

 

[Norrefeldt]

I havn't got enough knowledge on German geography, but if there are to be no "plains" in Germany we should probably change the Scandinavian and Baltic "plains" to "forrest" as well. Germany was much more heavily populated and cultivated than Sweden or Jylland. I doubt the German AI's will benefit much though, since it will also be harder for them to relieve sieges.
Another thing, couldn't we make some German AI's more stay-at-home defensive, like the Hussites?

 

[Twoflower]

I havn't got enough knowledge on German geography, but if there are to be no "plains" in Germany we should probably change the Scandinavian and Baltic "plains" to "forrest" as well. Germany was much more heavily populated and cultivated than Sweden or Jylland. I doubt the German AI's will benefit much though, since it will also be harder for them to relieve sieges.

They probably will not benefit much, still I think it would be good to make them a bit less prone to getting their armies wiped out by the usually cavalry-heavy armies of Poland, France and Burgundy. Also sieges will take longer. It probably won't prevent conquest sprees, but might make them harder and slow them down a bit. Thus, this would not necessarily be the universal cure, yet still a change to the right direction. I generally think that we currently have too many plains provinces, probably because plains were used as default terrain. Forest would IMO be a better "default" terrain (which doesn't mean I'm suggesting that all provinces should be turned into forest, just that in several more cases than just Germany it would be good to do some reviewing).

That aside, plains are simply wrong for all German provinces except Hanover (which is, as already said, a matter of interpretation and definition) and perhaps Magdeburg and some of the Rhine valley. The only Scandinavian and Baltic provinces that currently have plains are Skane, Sjaelland and Jutland; it would probably be good to change these too.

Another thing, couldn't we make some German AI's more stay-at-home defensive, like the Hussites?

Certainly not a bad idea. In fact, all German states should for their own sake have war = 0, an empty combat list and very defensive settings throughout the 15th and most of the 16th century.

 

[unmerged(25696)]

Certainly not a bad idea. In fact, all German states should for their own sake have war = 0, an empty combat list and very defensive settings throughout the 15th and most of the 16th century.

You should probably have to reduce Helvetia's settings too, as they're prone to invade their neighbours.

What about giving them all Small fortresses at start (or Medium) ? In all my games, the german minors are gobbled very early, so giving them Small fortresses would limit this. After all, in order to get the control of the full province, invaders have to submit many territorial princes and free cities.

Otherwise, there're still the Independence events...

 

[Norrefeldt]

You should probably have to reduce Helvetia's settings too, as they're prone to invade their neighbours.

I agree.

What about giving them all Small fortresses at start (or Medium) ? In all my games, the german minors are gobbled very early, so giving them Small fortresses would limit this. After all, in order to get the control of the full province, invaders have to submit many territorial princes and free cities.

It would prolong their existence by a couple of months, and make them less able to re-emerge as revolters. Apart from being ahistorical.

Otherwise, there're still the Independence events...

Well, we haven't even tried to modify the AI's yet. Not that I would like to have those events anyhow.

 

[unmerged(25696)]

It would prolong their existence by a couple of months, and make them less able to re-emerge as revolters. Apart from being ahistorical.

It could be just a couple months, but this may be enough for them to buy out of the war, and their alliance leader might strike a peace before they fall.

I was also thinking about reducing the support limit of the provinces, but apart of giving them desert or winter climates, or decreasing Base Tax Value (which would hurt them more), I don't find any other idea.

What really hurts the german minors, is the Hansa League warring against both the scandinavian powers and against Poland's alliance. Often, I see Poland allied to Brandenburg, and so war starts to spread between german minors. Once the Hansa gets dissolved (due to a bunch of dihonors of alliance), former members ally with others, often with stronger non-german nations (like Bohemia, Burgundy, France, England, Poland & Denmark), and they get embroiled in more wars.
What about making most members of the Hansa vassals of another ?

In fact, most german countries already follow the peacefulAI, and this has war = 0 and empty combat lists. The problem doesn't come from here, but from the facts that :
- relations go down too fast : what about making them higher at start (not a definitive fix, but it will help at the beginning)
- CBs and BB increase the risk of a war (and once a german minor FA 2-3 others, permanent war erupts)
- countries take the power of the alliances into account, and the minor who is allied to a powerful country (Poland, Bohemia/Hungary, France, scandinavians, England) tend to DoW its neighbours who share an alliance among minors.

 

[tombom]

When I lurked here for a bit last year, I seem to remember a lot of discussion on changing AIs due to too much DoWs by Helveltia especially. Did anything ever change there?

 

[unmerged(25696)]

When I lurked here for a bit last year, I seem to remember a lot of discussion on changing AIs due to too much DoWs by Helveltia especially. Did anything ever change there?

Helvetia has peacefulAI too. But the problem here is that they have two provinces, and so are stronger than their one province neighbour (and bigger starting army too).

 

[Norrefeldt]

HAb start 1419 in two alliances in the scenario file. I think that only one is actually implemented, and the other blocked. But it might casue problems.
Which one should be removed?

    alliance = { 
        id = { type = 9423 id = 7 } 
        type = militaryalliance 
        expirydate = { year = 1500 month = january day = 1 } 
        participant = { HUN BOH HAB }
    }

alliance = {
        id = { type = 9423 id = 26 } 
        type = militaryalliance 
        expirydate = { year = 1444 month = JANUARY day = 1 } 
        participant = { HAB PRM TYR }
    }

 

[Twoflower]

HAb start 1419 in two alliances in the scenario file. I think that only one is actually implemented, and the other blocked. But it might casue problems.
Which one should be removed?

    alliance = { 
        id = { type = 9423 id = 7 } 
        type = militaryalliance 
        expirydate = { year = 1500 month = january day = 1 } 
        participant = { HUN BOH HAB }
    }

alliance = {
        id = { type = 9423 id = 26 } 
        type = militaryalliance 
        expirydate = { year = 1444 month = JANUARY day = 1 } 
        participant = { HAB PRM TYR }
    }

The alliance with Styria and Tyrol should be removed, as was implied in the submission.

 

[Sute]{h]

You should probably have to reduce Helvetia's settings too, as they're prone to invade their neighbours.

What about giving them all Small fortresses at start (or Medium) ? In all my games, the german minors are gobbled very early, so giving them Small fortresses would limit this. After all, in order to get the control of the full province, invaders have to submit many territorial princes and free cities.

Otherwise, there're still the Independence events...

Giving small fortresses (or even medium) to all German one-province minors might not be a bad idea. However events should be scripted that reduce these if a minor is annexed by someone without german culture. That way Germany has a chance at reconquering the lost province.

Also events to reduce BB in AI-controlled minors is very much needed to prevent the Eternal Wars.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Well, Savoy and Milan frequently were enemies of the Swiss as well; the problem is just that wars are usually going into the wrong direction: IRL the Swiss invaded Hapsburg, Milanese and Savoyard territories, it was not their neighbours ganging up against them and dividing their lands. The too large scale of wars in EU2 is also a really bad problem in representing the various feuds going on in Germany - while IRL e.g. Brandenburg and Stettin spent several decades fighting over the Uckermark and other small border territories and cities, a war between Brandenburg and Stettin will usually result in Brandenburg annexing Stettin and sometimes (if Stettin has good allies) in Stettin taking Magdeburg. IMO the only satisfactory solution to this is to give all German states peaceful.ai throughout the 15th century and not represent their minor feuds as wars in EU2.

the feud angle sounds like the solution is a variation on the Landshut event for BAY. Since the winner of the war is going to pick up small districts hera and there that should basically increase the tax value in a core etc. Be tough to script all those imperial mediations though....

 

[unmerged(36449)]

What about Mainz? The Elector of Mainz was one of the most prestigous princes in the Empire and quite important in German histroy, even if the state was hardly a superpower. At the moment, Mainz province belongs to the Palatinate, which I understand as the Palatinate ought to have 2 provinces and Pfalz province is much to far west for Heidelberg. Mainz could potentially be given the province of Hessen, Wurzburg, or Baden, none of which would be geographically accurate, but Hesse was divided into several extremely petty states after the death of Prince Phillip, and Mainz was certainly more important than Bayreuth or Baden. I also think Magdeburg deserves independence as it was one of wealthiest and most populous cities of the Empire in 1419 and wasn't annexed by Brandenburg until 1663, though I can see giving Brandeburg Magdeburg to make sure they stick around long enough to become the Prussian Kingdom.

the map needs to be reworked in some areas IMHO but who wants to do it?

The problem with some of the imperial cities and bishop-princes in the HRE is that they are so tiny... they may have had a ton of cash but no much territory that can be represented in the game map.

Also, I am of the opinion that there needs to be a look taken at the paradigm of how some aspects of things are represented in the game, sort of tying into your comment on Magdeburg...

Look at the Bavarian Landshut event for a rather clever way of representing acquisition of territory without giving a map square up. Since the game has to have "squares" or tiles that you swap back in forth in war they should represent major geographic areas or important states etc. But the HRE was composed of a LOT of eensy-weensy postage stamps of "countries" with a very few really substantial "states/nations" stitched together out of these tiny family owned blocks of land.

In the case of Magdeburg I would suggest rather then giving Brandenburg territory that they really did not OWN in the form of a map tile/province. You could get much the same effect that you are looking for with an event for the Hohenzollerns that adds tax value and manpower to Brandenburg representing the subterritories of Magdeburg that they hold. This way the actual province is still in play (IIRC the Wittelsbachs were still in possession of some of their family holdings there during the early part of the game), but Brandenburg still has resources that they may need to stay alive til later in the game.

Now provinces are still going to change hands as part of peace resolutions etc. And that is all good, but what that really represents is the party that owned the bulk of the province surrendered its' interests in that georgraphic area to the winner. It has no real affect on the small families that were just as sovereign that lived in the district, nor does it have any affect on the estates owned in that district by other dynasties. So this bump to the resources for the starting cores should be fairly safe so to speak since the major families had estates all over the place.

It would be great if the game engine allowed you to swap these micro estates as part of peace resolutions so that you would only have to give up manpower and tax value rather then a whole province, it would sure keep some of the one province powers around a bit longer. I don't know if it is possible or not to do that. I would seem to me that it would be adding a couple of addition buttons under the ducat gimme buttons but it would involve some plumbing alterations on the inside to allow province tax values et al to slide variably and more dynamically than they presently do as a result of some events. The basic parts are there I am just not sure how one would go about accessing them in a new way to reflect this.

Well I think I have tangented enough here and will just end this...

 

[unmerged(36449)]

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.

it makes more sense to go the less work route and use a city in the region that everyone knows.