Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

AGCEEP Burgundy

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
should BUR cede any lands to anyone in the treaty of Arras, IF they have not moved their capital to the lowlands.

keeping the capital in central France indicates to me a desire to seek the french crown in some point in time.
 
Toio said:
should BUR cede any lands to anyone in the treaty of Arras, IF they have not moved their capital to the lowlands.

keeping the capital in central France indicates to me a desire to seek the french crown in some point in time.
Click to expand...

Yes they should. The treaty of Arras was the turning point of the HYW in which Burgundy reconciled with France and - with some exceptions - accepted France as it´s vassal again.

From a gamist point of view for an AI Burgundy it does not really matter as it´s usually inherited a few years later regardless if the capital is in Dijon or the Netherlands.

For a player it´s easy to avoid that - chose b or simply keep being at war with France until you can form France.
 
ConjurerDragon said:
Yes they should. The treaty of Arras was the turning point of the HYW in which Burgundy reconciled with France and - with some exceptions - accepted France as it´s vassal again.

From a gamist point of view for an AI Burgundy it does not really matter as it´s usually inherited a few years later regardless if the capital is in Dijon or the Netherlands.

For a player it´s easy to avoid that - chose b or simply keep being at war with France until you can form France.
Click to expand...

if you read burgundian history, the acceptance of suzerity by france was only due to the fact that burgundian interests was decided on the policy of having it main dominions in the lowlands. without this change in policy ( bought about by relocating its capital - which is wrongly placed in brabant lands ), burgundy would have remained in seeking to establish its heritary lands in central and southern france as per when they migrated from east germany area.
So, its illogical to me to do this - being a vassal and conceding lands
 
( bought about by relocating its capital - which is wrongly placed in brabant lands )
Click to expand...
I have yet to dig into my Philip the Good book yet, but assuming the "capital" was moved to Brussels as the event claims, Brabant should be the right province - or the closest possible match on the current map - shouldn't it? It was located in the Duchy of Brabant historically, anyway.

Anyway, I agree with Toio. There's no way the Treaty of Aras as we know it would ever have been proposed with Philip focusing on France instead of the Low Countries.
 
Kuld von Reyn said:
I have yet to dig into my Philip the Good book yet, but assuming the "capital" was moved to Brussels as the event claims, Brabant should be the right province - or the closest possible match on the current map - shouldn't it? It was located in the Duchy of Brabant historically, anyway.

Anyway, I agree with Toio. There's no way the Treaty of Aras as we know it would ever have been proposed with Philip focusing on France instead of the Low Countries.
Click to expand...

In 1430, Philip the good transferred the burgundian court to Bruges, this was the main city for the court, he did sometimes also use Brussels and Lille
 
Toio said:
if you read burgundian history, the acceptance of suzerity by france was only due to the fact that burgundian interests was decided on the policy of having it main dominions in the lowlands. without this change in policy ( bought about by relocating its capital - which is wrongly placed in brabant lands ), burgundy would have remained in seeking to establish its heritary lands in central and southern france as per when they migrated from east germany area.
So, its illogical to me to do this - being a vassal and conceding lands
Click to expand...

The treaty of Arras is much more than just Burgundy ceding provinces to France.
Historically Burgundy should not even own most of the provinces that are ceded in the event, it just cedes them just in case even for an ahistorically large Burgundy.

If Burgundy actually wants the crown of France and is actively pursuing that goal the Treaty of Arras event won´t fire.
The BUR event is triggered by a FRA event that has as condition that FRA and BUR are not at war so a war between BUR and FRA between september 1435 and 1440 prevents the whole treaty of Arras.

Even if Burgundy did chose to have it´s capital in Dijon and to expand it´s rule from there that does not mean that they would reject a recondiliation with France that gives them the historical advantages - FRA accepts that they don´t have to pay homage for some of their fiefs which is a step towards independance and they receive the somme towns and france gives up claims on several provinces so that less tensions exist.

After all even when BUR moved it´s capital to the Netherlands they did not concentrate ONLY on the Netherlands but still tried to connect their ruled areas which lead to their downfall.

Edit: If we want to make the treaty of arras requiring a little bit more effort then we can add a relation trigger, e.g.
relation = { country = BUR data = -150 } #relations -150 or better
to the HYW FRA event 170306 as the events if A is chosen in both events raise relations by + 350
or that they have a truce with the new trigger.
 
Last edited:
ConjurerDragon said:
The treaty of Arras is much more than just Burgundy ceding provinces to France.
Historically Burgundy should not even own most of the provinces that are ceded in the event, it just cedes them just in case even for an ahistorically large Burgundy.

If Burgundy actually wants the crown of France and is actively pursuing that goal the Treaty of Arras event won´t fire.
The BUR event is triggered by a FRA event that has as condition that FRA and BUR are not at war so a war between BUR and FRA between september 1435 and 1440 prevents the whole treaty of Arras.

Even if Burgundy did chose to have it´s capital in Dijon and to expand it´s rule from there that does not mean that they would reject a recondiliation with France that gives them the historical advantages - FRA accepts that they don´t have to pay homage for some of their fiefs which is a step towards independance and they receive the somme towns and france gives up claims on several provinces so that less tensions exist.

After all even when BUR moved it´s capital to the Netherlands they did not concentrate ONLY on the Netherlands but still tried to connect their ruled areas which lead to their downfall.

Edit: If we want to make the treaty of arras requiring a little bit more effort then we can add a relation trigger, e.g.
relation = { country = BUR data = -150 } #relations -150 or better
to the HYW FRA event 170306 as the events if A is chosen in both events raise relations by + 350
or that they have a truce with the new trigger.
Click to expand...

From john the fearless, philip the good and Charles the bold, they all distanced themselves from the french monarch. Why would you even contemplate giving away lands, its not as if BUR could not defend itself.

In regards to treaty of arras , there should be a trigger to sleep this event if in event move capital to lowlands is not taken.

Your relation idea is basically flawed because in the game we have relation creep, everyone by default start with a plus 125 and then usually everything has more positive relations than negative, both in country events as well as random events. Relation is not balanced.
 
Toio said:
From john the fearless, philip the good and Charles the bold, they all distanced themselves from the french monarch.
Click to expand...

So? And with all that distancing the Treaty of Arras yet still historically happened.
Maybe Charles the bold did not distance himself THAT much because he was only 2 years old when the Treaty of Arras historically was signed... ;-)

Why would you even contemplate giving away lands, its not as if BUR could not defend itself.
Click to expand...

Please read through the entire event chain of the "Treaty of Arras" before making such comments.
BUR does not simply "give away" lands. FRA and BUR cede several provinces to each other in the Treaty of Arras events and FRA loses cores on several provinces historically held by BUR. Historically FRA acknowledged a lot of BUR´s grivances and claims in turn for BUR´s accepting the current french king as the rightful king of FRA.

In regards to treaty of arras , there should be a trigger to sleep this event if in event move capital to lowlands is not taken.
Click to expand...

No. If BUR ahistorically choses the b option to have their capital stay in Dijon they don´t concentrate ONLY on France but concentrate more on their french lands. Chosing A ( the historical option) is similar in that they may concentrate MORE on the Netherlands, but not entirely as they still tried to conquer the lands connecting their provinces.

That however is no problem at all, as the Treaty of Arras event chain only triggers if FRA and BUR are not at war for the not fully 5 years in which it can trigger.

So - be at war with France and the event won´t trigger.

Or to put it more gamey: If a player choses b (stay in Dijon) he can consciously pursue the french crown and stay at war with FRA (to prevent the treaty of arras event from ever triggering) OR simply chooses B again in the arras event - it´s not that difficult to do.

If the AI by random chance chooses the ahistorical b choice to stay in Dijon then there is no problem that it goes back to the historical course of events with the treaty of arras events. I don´t think that an ahistorical choice in one event should prevent a later important historical event from happening if the situation is similar to what it was historically.

Your relation idea is basically flawed because in the game we have relation creep, everyone by default start with a plus 125 and then usually everything has more positive relations than negative, both in country events as well as random events. Relation is not balanced.
Click to expand...

Having a core on the others provinces like FRA and BUR have will slowly let relations detoriate.
Oh - and perhaps events like on the bridge of Montereau in which the monarch of BUR is killed and DAU-BUR relations are lowered by - 200. (DAU that later becomes FRA).

However if relations is not the best trigger to use how about the "truce" trigger or about a countrsize check?
e.g. in the FRA event that starts the Treaty of Arras sequence a check that BUR is smaller than say 20 provinces in which case BUR would not accept the the historical treaty?

Edit: Something else that came to my mind. If BUR selects the ahistorical b option to stay in Dijon and reaches the death of Charles the bold events - doesn´t that mean that the command to cede the province in which their capital still is would not work? And so that Spain would get Bourgogne and so a province more than it should?
Should we add a command to move the capital to the Netherlands in events BUR 137012 a choice?
 
Last edited:
ConjurerDragon said:
So? And with all that distancing the Treaty of Arras yet still historically happened.
Maybe Charles the bold did not distance himself THAT much because he was only 2 years old when the Treaty of Arras historically was signed... ;-)



Please read through the entire event chain of the "Treaty of Arras" before making such comments.
BUR does not simply "give away" lands. FRA and BUR cede several provinces to each other in the Treaty of Arras events and FRA loses cores on several provinces historically held by BUR. Historically FRA acknowledged a lot of BUR´s grivances and claims in turn for BUR´s accepting the current french king as the rightful king of FRA.



No. If BUR ahistorically choses the b option to have their capital stay in Dijon they don´t concentrate ONLY on France but concentrate more on their french lands. Chosing A ( the historical option) is similar in that they may concentrate MORE on the Netherlands, but not entirely as they still tried to conquer the lands connecting their provinces.

That however is no problem at all, as the Treaty of Arras event chain only triggers if FRA and BUR are not at war for the not fully 5 years in which it can trigger.

So - be at war with France and the event won´t trigger.

Or to put it more gamey: If a player choses b (stay in Dijon) he can consciously pursue the french crown and stay at war with FRA (to prevent the treaty of arras event from ever triggering) OR simply chooses B again in the arras event - it´s not that difficult to do.

If the AI by random chance chooses the ahistorical b choice to stay in Dijon then there is no problem that it goes back to the historical course of events with the treaty of arras events. I don´t think that an ahistorical choice in one event should prevent a later important historical event from happening if the situation is similar to what it was historically.



Having a core on the others provinces like FRA and BUR have will slowly let relations detoriate.
Oh - and perhaps events like on the bridge of Montereau in which the monarch of BUR is killed and DAU-BUR relations are lowered by - 200. (DAU that later becomes FRA).

However if relations is not the best trigger to use how about the "truce" trigger or about a countrsize check?
e.g. in the FRA event that starts the Treaty of Arras sequence a check that BUR is smaller than say 20 provinces in which case BUR would not accept the the historical treaty?

Edit: Something else that came to my mind. If BUR selects the ahistorical b option to stay in Dijon and reaches the death of Charles the bold events - doesn´t that mean that the command to cede the province in which their capital still is would not work? And so that Spain would get Bourgogne and so a province more than it should?
Should we add a command to move the capital to the Netherlands in events BUR 137012 a choice?
Click to expand...

I read through the events, they are fully favoring the french , as an example, FRA makes BUR a vassal, when history the treaty of Arras said, htat BUR independence is gauranteed as well as no homage ever needs to be paid again to france.


you need to remove the vassal command in that event

in trigger, ensure BUR capital event has triggered either way - 137000 ( to satisy us as a relation trigger is ineffecient , although a stab one or a capital = ile de france might be better

and while on BUR_137000 , please correct the capital to flanders as bruges where the court mostly was held was in flanders. The only reason AGCEEP did not use flanders was that some wanted an independent flemish nation which will never occur
 
Toio said:
and while on BUR_137000 , please correct the capital to flanders as bruges where the court mostly was held was in flanders. The only reason AGCEEP did not use flanders was that some wanted an independent flemish nation which will never occur
Click to expand...
Then we would need to fine tune all following events dealing with cession of Flanders province. If Flanders becomes capital, Brabant could/should be ceded. There are other events dealing with these two provinces to tweak accordingly. And all of them aren't in BUR file only.

However I seem to remember that when the capital city is ceded by event, there is no longer a CTD, just that the command is ignored, is it correct?
 
Toio said:
I read through the events, they are fully favoring the french , as an example, FRA makes BUR a vassal, when history the treaty of Arras said, htat BUR independence is gauranteed as well as no homage ever needs to be paid again to france.
Click to expand...

Yes that is correct. However "homage" is not the same as vassalage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homage_(medieval)
Homage as the french did expect from Burgundy before the treaty of Arras and that Burgundy did not want to give (just as the english kings did not want it to give for Normandy and Bretagne) was a more binding form of vassalage in which the vassal had in addition to being a vassal to swear that he would follow ONLY his liege. So a duke of Burgundy could be a vassal of both the king of France and the Emperor of the HRE for different fiefs - but he could pay homage only to ONE.
And this was one of Burgundies demands that the french did give up in the treaty of arras.

you need to remove the vassal command in that event
Click to expand...

Have you actually read the whole event chain as I asked in my post 68?
In event HYW FRA 170308 France may gain BUR as vassal, BUT the same event triggers event HYW BUR 137073 which breaks the vassalage again.

That is both historical AND needed for the game.
Historically BUR did acknowledge Charles as King of France and that BUR held it´s french fiefs as vassals of FRA, however the additional demand to pay homage for those fiefs was dropped by FRA - so BUR was more independant than any other french duke. And as we don´t have different forms of vassalage in the game the vassalage is ended with the BUR event.

For the game it´s needed as becoming a vassal breaks Burgundys royal marriages and alliances as we don´t have a functional command to break unwanted alliances.

in trigger, ensure BUR capital event has triggered either way - 137000 ( to satisy us as a relation trigger is ineffecient , although a stab one or a capital = ile de france might be better
Click to expand...

In the trigger of which event should 137000 be checked to have happened? And for the location of the capital it would be more useful to use the capital trigger as the capital could be moved with event 137075 too.

and while on BUR_137000 , please correct the capital to flanders as bruges where the court mostly was held was in flanders. The only reason AGCEEP did not use flanders was that some wanted an independent flemish nation which will never occur
Click to expand...

The burgundian capital moves to Flanders and Brugge in 1499 with event 137081.
 
Bordic said:
Then we would need to fine tune all following events dealing with cession of Flanders province. If Flanders becomes capital, Brabant could/should be ceded. There are other events dealing with these two provinces to tweak accordingly. And all of them aren't in BUR file only.

However I seem to remember that when the capital city is ceded by event, there is no longer a CTD, just that the command is ignored, is it correct?
Click to expand...

Yes, I remember to have read that somewhere too, that ceding provinces if the province is the capital no longer causes a CTD but the command is ignored.
However as the burgundian capital is already moved to Flanders in 1499 there is no need to change that.
 
Glaucon said:
The -6 Stab hit can come from a few things, usually because becoming a vassal breaks all marriages and you get -1 from each marriage. This is something that could be taken care of by not giving Burgundy any RMs in the startup I would think...

I encountered what I would think is an oversight, but I had the event The Crown of France fire in 1462. I chose the option "France is reborn with me." And then I had Phillip the Good replaced as my monarch with the Valois dynasty (Louis XI). Shouldn't this event trigger an alternate dynasty for France?

I did not drive the English off the Continent and bring peace and order to France just to put some disinherited baby on the throne and watch him throw it away.
Click to expand...

Have you moved your capital to Brussels? I am wondering if it's necessary to keep it in Dijon in order to fire the event The Crown of France...
 
Ok, it's time to return to event suggestions...
What if Philip the Good himself had been emperor?
Code: 
#(1447-1460) Philip the Good claims the crown of Lotharingia
#by vjw
event = {
    id = 137047
    trigger = {
        stability = 3
        atwar = no
        emperor = yes
        owned = { province = 339 data = BUR } #Holland
        owned = { province = 340 data = BUR } #Zeeland
        owned = { province = 377 data = BUR } #Luxembourg
        owned = { province = 378 data = BUR } #Brabant
        owned = { province = 379 data = BUR } #Artois
        owned = { province = 380 data = BUR } #Flandern
        owned = { province = 387 data = BUR } #Franche-Comté
        owned = { province = 409 data = BUR } #Bourgogne
        NOT = { event = 28006 } #BUR: King Philip
    }
    random = no
    country = BUR
    name = "EVENTNAME137047" #Philip the Good claims the crown of Lotharingia
    desc = "EVENTHIST137047"
    #-#After the death of Louis the Pious in 840 the Carolingian Empire was divided between his three sons. Two of these Kingdoms would survive to become France and the Holy Roman Empire. The third Kingdom, Lotharingia, dwindled and was upon the death of King Zwentibold absorbed into Germany. Philip the Good, having become the Holy Roman Emperor, has the authority to take the vacant crown of Lotharingia.

    date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1447 }
    offset = 360
    deathdate = { day = 29 month = december year = 1460 }

    action_a = {
        name = "ACTIONNAME137047A" #Crown himself as King of Lotharingia
        command = { type = trigger which = 28006 } #BUR: King Philip
        command = { type = relation which = LOR value = -50 }
        command = { type = relation which = HEL value = -50 }
        command = { type = relation which = FRA value = -50 }
    }
    action_b = {
        name = "ACTIONNAME137047B" #We do not need the crown of Lotharingia
        command = { type = relation which = -7 value = 20 }
        command = { type = relation which = -7 value = 20 }
        command = { type = relation which = -7 value = 20 }
    }   
}
Of course, this needs to be corrected and the opposite situation is also true.
Code: 
    trigger = {
        stability = 3
        atwar = no
        emperor = no
        owned = { province = 339 data = BUR } #Holland
        owned = { province = 340 data = BUR } #Zeeland
        owned = { province = 378 data = BUR } #Brabant
        owned = { province = 379 data = BUR } #Artois
        owned = { province = 380 data = BUR } #Flandern
        owned = { province = 387 data = BUR } #Franche-Comté
        owned = { province = 409 data = BUR } #Bourgogne
        exists = HAB
    }
 
I wonder if that makes sense. CLaiming the crown of Lotharingia makes sense if you are only the "Grand Duke of the West" and want to have your own, elevated and completely independent kingdom. Free of France and the HRE.

However if you are already the Emperor then it makes no sense at all. The Emperor was seen as universal, ruler of the whole empire and claiming the crown of a part of it is nothing new (the HRE and France always vied for control of Lotharingia) and no improvement over the Emperors Crown.
 
I think I've figured it out. Philip the Good did not come to an agreement with the emperor because "he refused to pay to Emperor, the sum the latter demanded, and to give the oath of allegiance and vassalage for those part of his possessions which were fiefs of the Empire." (A short history of Belgium, Essen 1916) He wanted to be independent of anyone, just like his successor.

On the other hand, if he becomes emperor, it gives him the authority to claim a higher role. The obvious view is that the Habsburgs, who proclaimed themselves archdukes, are above the ordinary dukes, but below the electors. However, in contrast with them, to proclaim oneself king of Lotharingia is already to raise its status in the eyes of other members of the Empire.

And that's not counting the player's money injections into electors to get Philip elected emperor. No one will reward but themselves ;)

EDIT: Oh, I found an another cite from the book: "He boasted to an envoy of Louis XI, King of France, that 'he wanted them to know he could have been king, if he had only willed it.'"
 
Last edited:
It´s practically the same that others have done after 1648 - Brandenburg-Prussia became King in Prussia, Saxony got a king´s title in Poland, Hanover were kings of the United Kingdom. Noone wanted to be 2nd in rank to the Emperor anymore but be an independant sovereign nation and for that "Elector" or "Duke" was not enough, but it had to be King, even if only a king title outside the Empire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back