ConjurerDragon said:
Does Austria become Burgundy? I thought Burgundy became Spain, in which case it wouldn't matter where Austria's capital was...
-
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.
Does Austria become Burgundy? I thought Burgundy became Spain, in which case it wouldn't matter where Austria's capital was...
mandead said:
No, Austria stays Austria (unless Styria or Tyrol became Austria). What I meant was that Austria has a choice to place it´s capital in different locations which could be used as a template for an event in which Burgundy can select either "be Burgundy+capital Brussels" or "be spain, capital Toledo" or such.
ConjurerDragon said:
Ohh, I see what you mean. Sorry
Yes, that's a good idea. I'd be happy to write/edit some events if my idea is approved. I just don't think Madrid should be the capital 'till Charles V abdicates.
Bordic said:Had the House of Hasburg any ancestral claim to the Low Countries (the nowaday's Belgium) and Franche-Comté or none of them, or just because they were emperors they had rights over those lands?
If it is because of emperor's rights I would suggest this change:
but if we make the change we would need to change the FRA_3320 event again (from the latest beta):Code:#(1477) France inherits Burgundy event = { id = 3180 #triggered by BUR_3597 B [COLOR=Yellow]trigger = { emperor = yes }[/COLOR] random = no country = HAB name = "EVENTNAME3180" #France inherits Burgundy desc = "EVENTHIST3319" #-# action_a = { name = "ACTIONNAME3180A" #I crave blood! command = { type = stability value = -2 } command = { type = addcore which = 377 } #Luxembourg command = { type = addcore which = 378 } #Brabant command = { type = addcore which = 379 } #Artois command = { type = addcore which = 387 } #Franche-Comté command = { type = relation which = FRA value = -50 } command = { type = casusbelli which = FRA value = 24 } } }
Code:#(1477) The Question of Burgundy event = { id = 3320 #triggered by BUR_3597 A trigger = { countrysize = 10 #a weak France shouldn't intervene! exists = BUR event = 3597 #BUR: The marriage of Mary of Burgundy [COLOR=Yellow]NOT = { event = 3319 } #FRA: France inherits Burgundy[/COLOR] } random = no country = FRA name = "EVENTNAME3320" #The Question of Burgundy desc = "EVENTHIST3320" #-# date = { day = [COLOR=Yellow]29[/COLOR] month = September year = 1477 } offset = 10 deathdate = { day = 29 month = December year = 1477 } action_a = { name = "ACTIONNAME3320A" #I crave blood! command = { type = relation which = BUR value = -50 } command = { type = relation which = HAB value = -50 } command = { type = war which = BUR } } action_b = { name = "ACTIONNAME3320B" #Respect Archduchess Mary's will command = { type = relation which = BUR value = 150 } command = { type = relation which = HAB value = 50 } command = { type = sleepevent which = 137012 } #BUR: The Treaty of Arras } }
instead of testing HAB_3180 which fires only if HAB is emperor.
Another problem: if HAB is not emperor, should they have FC, which is received with BUR_3597 B ? Can we assume it as Habsburgs dominions such as neighbouring possessions in Souther Germany?
that is all tied to the marriage of Mary of Burgundy, if she chooses the Austrian then they do have all rights to the possessions of the Duchy.
IF she chooses France then they get the claims.
Yes, BUR_3597 A entitles the Archduke of Austria to claim these lands.bobtdwarf said:
Here is the problem! Why should BUR_3597 B entitle the Archduk of Austria to claim these lands, ie Belgium and the county of Bourgogne (Franche-Comté)? I oculd understand for FC as we can assume (!) it could be claimed by neighbouring Habsburgs who had possessions in vanilla's Alsace (not sure...) and Baden-Wirtemberg, and also becasue FC cannot revolt. But why should Belgium be claimed? If I were the emperor (
o ) (not from the House of Habsburg! ) I would restore the duchy of Brabant... Bordic said:Yes, BUR_3597 A entitles the Archduke of Austria to claim these lands.
Here is the problem! Why should BUR_3597 B entitle the Archduk of Austria to claim these lands, ie Belgium and the county of Bourgogne (Franche-Comté)? I oculd understand for FC as we can assume (!) it could be claimed by neighbouring Habsburgs who had possessions in vanilla's Alsace (not sure...) and Baden-Wirtemberg, and also becasue FC cannot revolt. But why should Belgium be claimed? If I were the emperor (
The "B" choice should not allow Austria to claim jack diddly squat of BUR! Nor would it be seen particularly legit by the rest of the world if Austria grabbed the territories so it should increase BB a bit if they should decide to exercise the option of going to war because their groom was refused.
My only question is whether or not the territories in question were governed by Salic inheritance laws or not which would make a major difference. And since Jacqueline of Bavaria held Brabant in her own right for a short time I would presume that they were not.
So whoever marries Mary gets the Duchy and all of its' territories and there should not be jack diddly that Austria can do about it.
Personally I would love to see the marriage of Mary event have a few more choices of Bridegroom but thats me...
Essentially you seem to agree with my suggestion, am I wrong? Austria can claim lands or lapsed fiefs only because they are emperor, the same as it happened with Spain for Milan.bobtdwarf said:
As for Jacqueline of Bavaria, are you talking about Jacoba, no? She lost her claims in favor of the duke of Burgundy, I seem to remember and Glouchester was the last claimant in the event sequence we have in the game iirc...
About alternative marriages I have already written and intensively tested (they seemed to work as expected!
) a few imo interesting events and posted here in this thread at page 21, from post #505 to post #507. If you wish (and what I warmly hope!) you can check them there and give some suggestions/comments.
I still haven't submitted them as in some parts they could be intended as too much fantasy for the agceep statement, maybe they should be meant for an alternative burgundy to be selectable at the beginning of the game...who knows?
Here I summarize the contents of the sequence:
ALTERNATIVE MARRIAGE OF MARY OF BURGUNDY
(about the (in)famous BUR_3597 action C which I have reported several times in this thread)
According to what was discussed here I have decided to use following pretenders:
- FILIPS VAN KLEEF (Philippe de Clèves-Ravenstein): you'll stay as traditional Burgundy (with French and Dutch culture)
- JOHANN OF NASSAU: you can choose to become Hainault and then Netherlands in 1559 (only Dutch culture)
- JOHANN OF KLEVE: either Burgundy or Kleve (both with German and Dutch culture)
and avoided the marriages with Gloucester, Federico of Naples, René of Lorraine as there are too much events involved and surely huge ahistorical consequences...
EDIT: ahistorical Burgundy ruled by the Valois-Cleves-Ravenstein dynasty (the default monarchs!
) or ruled by the Valois-Kleve dynasty will suffer the Dutch revolts.
Last edited:
@YodaMaster
I've found a bug in the trigger of event BUR_137038 submitted in version 1.51. I'll correct it soon, essentially the new event (to be found in post 505) doesn't check if BUR_3597 has correctly fired (ie. FRA or HAB don't exists).
EDIT: corrected, added a setflag in BUR events to be tested in 137038.
I've found a bug in the trigger of event BUR_137038 submitted in version 1.51. I'll correct it soon, essentially the new event (to be found in post 505) doesn't check if BUR_3597 has correctly fired (ie. FRA or HAB don't exists).
EDIT: corrected, added a setflag in BUR events to be tested in 137038.
Last edited:
Bordic said:Essentially you seem to agree with my suggestion, am I wrong? Austria can claim lands or lapsed fiefs only because they are emperor, the same as it happened with Spain for Milan.
As for Jacqueline of Bavaria, are you talking about Jacoba, no? She lost her claims in favor of the duke of Burgundy, I seem to remember and Glouchester was the last claimant in the event sequence we have in the game iirc...
About alternative marriages I have already written and intensively tested (they seemed to work as expected!
If you wish (and what I warmly hope!) you can check them there and give some suggestions/comments.
I still haven't submitted them as in some parts they could be intended as too much fantasy for the agceep statement, maybe they should be meant for an alternative burgundy to be selectable at the beginning of the game...who knows?
Here I summarize the contents of the sequence:
ALTERNATIVE MARRIAGE OF MARY OF BURGUNDY
(about the (in)famous BUR_3597 action C which I have reported several times in this thread)
According to what was discussed here I have decided to use following pretenders:
- FILIPS VAN KLEEF (Philippe de Clèves-Ravenstein): you'll stay as traditional Burgundy (with French and Dutch culture)
- JOHANN OF NASSAU: you can choose to become Hainault and then Netherlands in 1559 (only Dutch culture)
- JOHANN OF KLEVE: either Burgundy or Kleve (both with German and Dutch culture)
and avoided the marriages with Gloucester, Federico of Naples, René of Lorraine as there are too much events involved and surely huge ahistorical consequences...
EDIT: ahistorical Burgundy ruled by the Valois-Cleves-Ravenstein dynasty (the default monarchs!
Yes I in general agree. Jacoba as you call her was basically cheated out of her inheritance by Burgundy, but such is life sometimes.
I was taking a look at the event chain of yours at the link you provided and one thing jumped out at me first off: The marriage with Kleve is going to have a big impact later in the game. If you presume that all other things are equal, as in the births and deaths of children of that house then you would have the entire Kleve inheritance event chain down the road and a sizable war between the house of Hohenzollern and Wittelsbach over their claims in that event chain.
Which if the Wittelsbachs win would see them regain their former lost territories in the Netherlands.
Well, for me that goes too far...bobtdwarf said:
I know that in early XVIIth century Kleve is going to be inherited by Brandeburg, but I have coded that sequence to be mostly used by a human playing Burgundy in an alternative way and that in this way nobody is going to choose to be inherited by Brandeburg or Saxony and then forced to end the game...
Probably in 1609 the Wittelsbach couldn't any longer claim the Netherlands as they should be already independent or at least making revolts.
Last edited:
This isn't connected to the most recent discussion but I was wondering if anyone had ever looked into the BB heavy Burgundy and then its dogpiling. In my most recent two games, I noticed that Burgundy acquires a bunch of BB offensively and defensively against minors and manages to hold its own until the series of Austrian vassalage events fire after the marriage. These are pretty much its death knell as it loses all of its allies and suddenly becomes a very easy target. Is there anyway to prevent the BB buildup or commute the vassalizations?
Bordic said:Well, for me that goes too far...
I know that in early XVIIth century Kleve is going to be inherited by Brandeburg, but I have coded that sequence to be mostly used by a human playing Burgundy in an alternative way and that in this way nobody is going to choose to be inherited by Brandeburg or Saxony and then forced to end the game...
Probably in 1609 the Wittelsbach couldn't any longer claim the Netherlands as they should be already independent or at least making revolts.
Well the county of Holland would be part of the Netherlands, but as I recall they could press a so-so claim on Brabant which would not. But then again, assuming an alternate marriage of Mary to someone other then a Hapsburg it would be illogical to assume the same taxation/inquisition factors would be present to bring about the Dutch revolts. Makes even less sense if it is a "native" ruling house...
The Kleve option is quite an interesting one, I can certainly understand the decision to allow a human player to carry on with a different heir. But perhaps you should consider also writing the event so the inheritance goes the other way around; if Brandenburg, Saxony or Bayern are being played by the AI I see no reason why the inheritance events could not be written such that you inherit THEM and then have a follow up event that allows you to found X,Y, or Z country to allow the player to continue playing while still being true to the "history" of it all.
The Bavarian events would be a bit more complicated since Bayern did not directly inherit Julich-Berg but rather had to wait while the Munich branch died off and the Neuberg branch inherited Sulzbach and then Munich; but you get the general idea.
Garbon said:
I have noticed that! Burgundy basically goes under quite rapidly as every buddy and their cousin jumps them. It could be solved by adding a BB reducers to the Austrian vassalage events etc. that should keep them from ceasing to exist before the Archduke has even unpacked his luggage in Brussels.
The Dutch revolts, as I have written the events, cannot happen if Burgundy is inherited by HLL Holland or HOL Netherlands.bobtdwarf said:
You mean continuing playing eu2 as Brandeburg or Saxony or in case Bavaria? Humm, interesting as it let the player also form the Kingdom of Prussia.
EDIT: Looking through the events I have seen that a supposedly human playing as KLE can have the possibility to choose to become MUN (Berg) in 1609 so there is a variety of choices to be made. Unfortunately I don't know as much about history of German minors as I could be able to write appropriate events according to given alternative Brandeburg history. Just a tag change with appropriate cores as I did for Burgundy becoming Spain?
Last edited:
I remember somebody proposed to lower BB of Burgundy in 1477...
According to this, it is obvious "former" Burgundy/France or Burgundy inherited by Austria desserves -20 BB.
I will see which events are involved for Burgundy=>France inheriting Dauphiné are involved (I had to check recently for post in Bugs Thread) but could someone please see for Burgundy vassalized by Austria? Bordic?
Btw, when Burgundy/France inherits Dauphiné, Louis (XI) is already here as ruler of Dauphiné. I'm not sure why it is this way and not Dauphiné inheriting France and then becoming France (for DP settings and avoiding wars).
Maybe a problem with possible duplicated leaders? But, at least, don't we have Ignore button for this issue..?
According to this, it is obvious "former" Burgundy/France or Burgundy inherited by Austria desserves -20 BB.
I will see which events are involved for Burgundy=>France inheriting Dauphiné are involved (I had to check recently for post in Bugs Thread) but could someone please see for Burgundy vassalized by Austria? Bordic?
Btw, when Burgundy/France inherits Dauphiné, Louis (XI) is already here as ruler of Dauphiné. I'm not sure why it is this way and not Dauphiné inheriting France and then becoming France (for DP settings and avoiding wars).
Maybe a problem with possible duplicated leaders? But, at least, don't we have Ignore button for this issue..?
Last edited:
I submitted a -5 BB in 1477 when Charles dies, but I have never seen in my tests Burgundy having more than 0 BB after 1477. The problem of Burgundy's survival can only be seen in the two vassalization events which isolate Burgundy from having allliances with the neighbouring countries. We could include a breakvassal HAB after 1500s when Philippe le Beau rules without parental guidance (YodaMaster said:
)...Bordic said:The Dutch revolts, as I have written the events, cannot happen if Burgundy is inherited by HLL Holland or HOL Netherlands.
You mean continuing playing eu2 as Brandeburg or Saxony or in case Bavaria? Humm, interesting as it let the player also form the Kingdom of Prussia.
EDIT: Looking through the events I have seen that a supposedly human playing as KLE can have the possibility to choose to become MUN (Berg) in 1609 so there is a variety of choices to be made. Unfortunately I don't know as much about history of German minors as I could be able to write appropriate events according to given alternative Brandeburg history. Just a tag change with appropriate cores as I did for Burgundy becoming Spain?
yeah that is about what I was driving at.
One further note on the Dutch revolts. The key to them occurring is that you have to have a nation that was constantly embroiled in wars and in need of cash to really get the events that lead up to them. If they were inherited by lets say Kleve, or the Palatinate etc. They likely would not have been squeezed so tightly nor so long as they were under the Hapsburgs who were constantly or nearly constantly at war with somebody.
Lesser tax burden breeds less hate and discontent, which leads to fewer revolts.
what's the point of this trigger for the event below?
best to remove the trigger in my opinion
#(1477) The Great Privilege
event = {
id = 137311
trigger = {
flag = Brussels
}
random = no
country = BUR
.....................................
and this event,
#(1471) Military Reform by Lambert Simnel
event = {
id = 137002
trigger = { countrysize = 4 }
random = no
country = BUR
name = "EVENTNAME137002" #The Ordonnance of 1471
desc = "EVENTHIST137002"
#-#During the reign of Philip the Good the quality of the armies provided by the feudal levy had declined, the men-at-arms were ill-equiped and poorly skilled, the armed valets that in other armies fought alongside their masters were all but absent and not all nobles were able or willing to heed the call to muster. Nor could the disciplined city militias of the low countries be relied upon as the city governments were often in oposition to the Dukes of Burgundy. In 1471 a decision was finally made to reform the army. At the core of the new army would be the best mercenaries available: English longbowmen, German pikemen, Italian crossbowmen and men-at-arms from throughout Christendom.
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1471 }
offset = 120
deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1472 }
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME137002A" #Stengthen the army with mercenaries
command = { type = treasury value = -400 }
command = { type = domestic which = LAND value = 1 }
command = { type = domestic which = QUALITY value = 4 }
command = { type = domestic which = ARISTOCRACY value = -1 }
command = { type = CAV which = -2 value = 5000 }
command = { type = INF which = -2 value = 5000 }
command = { type = ART which = -2 value = 20 }
command = { type = land value = 250 }
}
action_b = {
name = "ACTIONNAME137002B" #Reform the feudal troops
command = { type = domestic which = CENTRALIZATION value = 1 }
command = { type = domestic which = ARISTOCRACY value = 2 }
command = { type = domestic which = SERFDOM value = 1 }
command = { type = stability value = -2 }
}
action_c = {
name = "ACTIONNAME137002C" #Let the decay continue
command = { type = domestic which = CENTRALIZATION value = -1 }
command = { type = domestic which = QUALITY value = -3 }
command = { type = stability value = 1 }
command = { type = land value = -250 }
}
}
heavy cost for A choice and also the AI will pick option C to gain the stability but loose -3 Quality?? NO human will pick C
no wonder BUR does not survive anymore
best to remove the trigger in my opinion
#(1477) The Great Privilege
event = {
id = 137311
trigger = {
flag = Brussels
}
random = no
country = BUR
.....................................
and this event,
#(1471) Military Reform by Lambert Simnel
event = {
id = 137002
trigger = { countrysize = 4 }
random = no
country = BUR
name = "EVENTNAME137002" #The Ordonnance of 1471
desc = "EVENTHIST137002"
#-#During the reign of Philip the Good the quality of the armies provided by the feudal levy had declined, the men-at-arms were ill-equiped and poorly skilled, the armed valets that in other armies fought alongside their masters were all but absent and not all nobles were able or willing to heed the call to muster. Nor could the disciplined city militias of the low countries be relied upon as the city governments were often in oposition to the Dukes of Burgundy. In 1471 a decision was finally made to reform the army. At the core of the new army would be the best mercenaries available: English longbowmen, German pikemen, Italian crossbowmen and men-at-arms from throughout Christendom.
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1471 }
offset = 120
deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1472 }
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME137002A" #Stengthen the army with mercenaries
command = { type = treasury value = -400 }
command = { type = domestic which = LAND value = 1 }
command = { type = domestic which = QUALITY value = 4 }
command = { type = domestic which = ARISTOCRACY value = -1 }
command = { type = CAV which = -2 value = 5000 }
command = { type = INF which = -2 value = 5000 }
command = { type = ART which = -2 value = 20 }
command = { type = land value = 250 }
}
action_b = {
name = "ACTIONNAME137002B" #Reform the feudal troops
command = { type = domestic which = CENTRALIZATION value = 1 }
command = { type = domestic which = ARISTOCRACY value = 2 }
command = { type = domestic which = SERFDOM value = 1 }
command = { type = stability value = -2 }
}
action_c = {
name = "ACTIONNAME137002C" #Let the decay continue
command = { type = domestic which = CENTRALIZATION value = -1 }
command = { type = domestic which = QUALITY value = -3 }
command = { type = stability value = 1 }
command = { type = land value = -250 }
}
}
heavy cost for A choice and also the AI will pick option C to gain the stability but loose -3 Quality?? NO human will pick C
no wonder BUR does not survive anymore
So you say a German duke could better control Dutch merchants because he is not going to exploit them? Hmm, well I think that his greed for gold wouldn't be weaker than a Habsburg's so that's why... and also because a eu2 game without the Netherlands loses too much imo...bobtdwarf said:
@Toio: "flag = Brussels" is to check if capital moved to... Brussels
For 137002, I'm not sure. IMHO, problem for Burgundy is elsewhere.
For 137002, I'm not sure. IMHO, problem for Burgundy is elsewhere.