• 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.
Toio said:
The commanders of the garrisons of the fortified cities in Morea, deserted by their rulers, chose individually whether to fight or surrender, depending on their own will and circumstances. In the final battle of the Roman Empire in its Byzantine incarnation, Graitzas Palaiologos, the military commander of the city of Salmenikos defeated Mehmed II, who after a month of siege returned home without conquering that "unimportant city". In the following year Graitzas received an offer to become general of the Republic of Venice, which he accepted, thus leaving Salmenikos to the Ottomans.

It basically gives Morea to venice , especially since Thomas fled to Rome and abandoned his kingdom.

This sounds like VEN should inherit SPR, but I would make it happen only if SPR is countrysize=1.

NEW:
Just took a look at this. Thomas fled to Rome abandoning Morea to Ottomans, not to Venice, so it doesn't justify having VEN inherit SPR. Had Ottomans not attacked, he never would have fled, so TUR still have to attack and conquer Morea. What if they don't?


Toio said:
You need a new event to state If VEN owns Romagna. after 1484 but should not fire until 1510 , when VEN gave romagna to PAP to stop the papal part of the Cambrai war
You can do this, but you need to tie it with

#(1510) Realizing Great Danger
#by Philip V modified by Isaac Brock
event = {
id = 17018

Sounds like the best solution. I'll look into it some more tomorrow when I'm less sleepy.

NEW:
Do we really need that? I found this about the return of Romagna to the Pope: "Even before the Venetian ambassadors had presented themselves to Julius for absolution, however, the Council of Ten had privately resolved that the terms had been accepted under duress and were therefore invalid; and that Venice should violate them at the earliest opportunity."
 
Last edited:
Lord Grave said:
This sounds like VEN should inherit SPR, but I would make it happen only if SPR is countrysize=1.

NEW:
Just took a look at this. Thomas fled to Rome abandoning Morea to Ottomans, not to Venice, so it doesn't justify having VEN inherit SPR. Had Ottomans not attacked, he never would have fled, so TUR still have to attack and conquer Morea. What if they don't?

As i said , just a core for Venice on morea will suffice


Sounds like the best solution. I'll look into it some more tomorrow when I'm less sleepy.

NEW:
Do we really need that? I found this about the return of Romagna to the Pope: "Even before the Venetian ambassadors had presented themselves to Julius for absolution, however, the Council of Ten had privately resolved that the terms had been accepted under duress and were therefore invalid; and that Venice should violate them at the earliest opportunity."

Yes i know this, but Venice did give the romagna to the PAP even if the people requested again in 1528 to be under Venice ( same as Apulia) . Venice never again went there .
 
Code:
#(1716-1820) Venetian hold on Morea - ahistorical
event = {
	id = 326077
	trigger = {
		atwar = no
		NOT = { owned = { province = 359 data = TUR } } #Hellas
		owned = { province = 360 data = VEN } #Morea
		NOT = { event = 326048 } #VEN: Fall of the Serenissima
		NOT = { core = { province = 360 data = -1 } } #Morea
	}
	random = no
	country = VEN
	name = "EVENTNAME326075" #Venetian hold on Morea
	desc = "EVENTHIST326075"

	date = { day = 1 month = may year = 1716 }
	offset = 90
	deathdate = { year = 1820 }

	action_a = {
		name = "GREAT"
		command = { type = addcore which = 360 } #Morea
	}
}
#-#With the Turkish tide beaten back from the crumbling Hexamilion, the former Byzantine Despotate of Morea is now safely under our control.
 
Last edited:
Niccolò de' Conti (1385–1469) was a Venetian merchant and explorer, born in Chioggia, who traveled to India and Southeast Asia, and possibly to Southern China, during the early 15th century.
Niccolò departed from Venice about 1419 and established himself in Damascus, Syria, where he studied Arabic.
 
Niccolò de' Conti (1385–1469) was a Venetian merchant and explorer, born in Chioggia, who traveled to India and Southeast Asia, and possibly to Southern China, during the early 15th century.
Niccolò departed from Venice about 1419 and established himself in Damascus, Syria, where he studied Arabic.

I tried to bring him in the game , but was refused by the HC

his actual name is
Niccolò Da Conti
(Chioggia, 1395 – 1469) è stato un esploratore italiano, mercante veneziano che viaggiò in India e nel Sud-est asiatico all'inizio del XV secolo.

de is french or spanish, do is portuguese, du is basque while in Italy its da or di...........da from a place while di is from a person.
example...leonardo da vinci means leonardo from the town called vinci

but, I tried , sorry
 
comunque il "de" c è anche in italiano e in wiki usano (almeno in quella ita) usano entrambe le forme de/da, however why he was rejected? have you rejected also Nikitin and Schiltberger?

pi mejo venet per mi, mah, posso legia 30% talian:D

de is in areas in Italy that the french or spanish controlled only in the time of early renaissance, but now de is all over italy because of internal immigration.

Nikitin ? never heard of him
Schiltberger - German, do not remember - I do not think so

Conti was rejected because they did not want to give VEN an explorer and I then asked for VEN to at least "see" conti's area of discovery- this was partly granted.
Its all to give, POR , SPA and HOL a chance to colonise.

I will talk to another member - bordic who lives in Italy and try to find out why we cannot add Niccolo da conti

thank you ............Have you see the FTG forum which is the latest for EU2?
 
well,I understood the logic of the refuse , so i think that also Schiltberger (born in "" Bayern"") could be refused for the same reason .Nikitin was a russian (born in Tver) "explorer/trader" who reached India etc etc, i tried to search him in the forum using "google" but I found nothing about him (i mean ,nothing as "explorer"), only a few quotes.However i ll leave a msg there( also if i prefer eu2 ,there s a lot of useful options in ftg, but i don t like the grafics).
 
Last edited:
de is french or spanish, do is portuguese

That is not correct.

De and Do are both used in Portuguese. Does Afonso de Albuquerque ring a bell?

Also, after looking a bit in depth at the venetian leader file, i am curious why a guy (Alviano) that caused Venice to lose everything that it had, is such a good general and why guys that salvaged what the republic had and managed to take most of what Alviano lost are neither included, or are extremely bad leaders.

Andrea Gritti was a venetian Proveditor and his Fabian strategy of denying the enemy pitched battles and instead focusing on the defense earned him victories (siege of padua) or at the very least very hard fought battles for the enemy (siege of brescia for example, which he lost). He was so much praised after his perfomance after Agnadello, which gave Venice back the territories that Alviano had managed to lose, that he was even elected as a Doge later. And before 1500 and his military career he passed most of his life trading grain in constantinople, so to be elected Doge you guys must imagine how good he was.

And btw, while Proveditors rarely took command of an army directly, Andrea Gritti was an exception. Although it served him little since guys like Alviano always refused to obey orders. Thus why Venice suffered crushing defeats at La Motta, Agnadello or Novarra.

But seriously, giving Alviano 5 movement, 4 fire and 4 shock, is quite hilarious for his very poor performance. Comparing leaders, Alviano is even better than Stefan Batory of Poland... And that is quite a joke. What did Alviano managed to achieve that made you guys give him so good stats?!

Anyway my proposal is to nerf Alviano and add Andrea Gritti as a leader. Dont know if Andrea Gritti was ever proposed to be a leader, but if it was, my apologies. :p

Code:
historicalleader = {
	id = { type = 6 id = ###### }
	category = general
	name = "Andrea Gritti"
	startdate = {
		day = 15
		month = may
		year = 1509 #elected proveditor after agnadello
	}
	deathdate = {
		month = december 
		year = 1522 #elected doge, command went over to Della Rovere
	}
	rank = 0
	movement = 3
	fire = 3
	shock = 3
	siege = 2
	dormant = no
	remark = "Elected Proveditor after Venice was defeated in the battle of Agnadello. Won the Siege of Padua and recaptured most of the lost territory during the Cambrai war. Was later elected as Doge."
}
 
That is not correct.

De and Do are both used in Portuguese. Does Afonso de Albuquerque ring a bell?

Also, after looking a bit in depth at the venetian leader file, i am curious why a guy (Alviano) that caused Venice to lose everything that it had, is such a good general and why guys that salvaged what the republic had and managed to take most of what Alviano lost are neither included, or are extremely bad leaders.

Andrea Gritti was a venetian Proveditor and his Fabian strategy of denying the enemy pitched battles and instead focusing on the defense earned him victories (siege of padua) or at the very least very hard fought battles for the enemy (siege of brescia for example, which he lost). He was so much praised after his perfomance after Agnadello, which gave Venice back the territories that Alviano had managed to lose, that he was even elected as a Doge later. And before 1500 and his military career he passed most of his life trading grain in constantinople, so to be elected Doge you guys must imagine how good he was.

And btw, while Proveditors rarely took command of an army directly, Andrea Gritti was an exception. Although it served him little since guys like Alviano always refused to obey orders. Thus why Venice suffered crushing defeats at La Motta, Agnadello or Novarra.

But seriously, giving Alviano 5 movement, 4 fire and 4 shock, is quite hilarious for his very poor performance. Comparing leaders, Alviano is even better than Stefan Batory of Poland... And that is quite a joke. What did Alviano managed to achieve that made you guys give him so good stats?!

Anyway my proposal is to nerf Alviano and add Andrea Gritti as a leader. Dont know if Andrea Gritti was ever proposed to be a leader, but if it was, my apologies. :p

Code:
historicalleader = {
	id = { type = 6 id = ###### }
	category = general
	name = "Andrea Gritti"
	startdate = {
		day = 15
		month = may
		year = 1509 #elected proveditor after agnadello
	}
	deathdate = {
		month = december 
		year = 1522 #elected doge, command went over to Della Rovere
	}
	rank = 0
	movement = 3
	fire = 3
	shock = 3
	siege = 2
	dormant = no
	remark = "Elected Proveditor after Venice was defeated in the battle of Agnadello. Won the Siege of Padua and recaptured most of the lost territory during the Cambrai war. Was later elected as Doge."
}

firstly - proveditors are army supervisors

The Venetian system for land warfare was based on the fact , that no venetian noble was to have an army greater than 25 men, so all the main land Generals where mercenary Italians ( as in not venetians) or other foreign nationals.
Proveditors where all venetian nobles of Military trianing who where sent by the doge to inspect the decisions of the mercenary general to ensure that the money spent by Venice of this leader was justified.
The reason gritti got the leadership was, the initial main army that fought in Agnamello was led by 2 mercenaries, pitiangelo and d'Alviano,. during the battle Pitiiagallo did not engage the french and was 5 miles away, so alviano should have not engaged the french and rejoined the senior pitigiano.
So, I agree that d'alviano was at fault here, but his venetian saved the french 4 years later against the swiss.


NOTE:d'alviano in a 4 month war against austria in 1508 , destroyed their armies and forced a 3 year peace which austria broke 6 months later
d'Alviano defeated the imperial Army of Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor in Cadore, at Mauria and Pontebba, conquering Gorizia and Trieste. In the same year Pordenone also fell and the Serenissima assigned its seignory to Alviano himself.

When pitigiano saw that d'alviano army was destroyed (15K), he withdrew his army of 15K to padua, but he died. gritti as proveditor took control, because the third mercenary, Malvezzo , had syphilis and was bedridden. Later Venetian troops under Lucio Malvezzo finally drove the French from Vicenza in early August;

to conclude. IMO , d'alviano should remain as is as his only flaw was engaging the french at half strength......and ......gritti should be included in the game


Naval system for VEN was completely different

Venice changed the army system after Lepanto and used their Venetian nobles or mercenary leaders as the main army generals. IIRC the greatest period of home grown army leaders of venetian birth was from 1650 to 1690
Morosini
Corner
Strassoldo
Garzoni
Bon
Molin
to name a few
 
Last edited:
If you are saying that the French only won the battle of marignano against the swiss thanks to alviano, i would say you are badly mistaken. French artilery decimated the packed "phalanx" of the swiss. Alviano arrived too late and only with 200 (or 300, i dont remember) horsemen which caused everyone to think that the main venetian army had arrived. But it had not - it was on its way. 300 men hardly had any impact on the outcome of the battle - it did, however, have a morale effect on the french and on the enemy. Still, it does not show any tactical skills from the part of Alviano.

On the other hand, Alviano lost Agnadello, which most historians say that it was a battle worse to Venice than Cannae was to the Romans. A good portion of the army was destroyed - and the other portion under Pitigliano and Gritti were met with heavy desertions after rumours of Alviano's defeat spread. And to make matters worse, the French could take almost every city that belonged to Venice in a few months unnoposed, while Venice took centuries to adquire all of them.

Alviano also got badly defeated at La Motta by the retreating Spanish - once again, he took the offensive, only to be badly repulsed and have his entire army fleeing the field by the desperate Spanish who were fighting for their lifes. Thousands of Venetian troops died in the struggle, including a high-ranking proveditor stabbed to death by his Spanish captors.

Not to forget the battle of Novarra - the french after losing their artilery, retreated and the venetians under alviano were left to burn and after alviano got defeated - once again - Spanish and German troops were allowed to move at ease in the veneto, laying siege to Padua, looting Mestre, burning patrician estates and even bombarding Venice itself. The disaster was complete.

I know that he had some early conficts against Imperial troops in which he had sucess, but considerating that Maximilian was not a great tactician and had a hard time paying his troops (he even had his entire army deserting him once), i do not know if these victories by the part of Alviano were pure luck or not (If you can provide me some information about these i would appreciate).

And even if he managed to win 3 battles against Maximilian due to his tactical skills, his other 3 defeats were far worse both strategically or tactically speaking. Marignano cant even be taken in consideration since he did not show any tactical skills in there.
 
If you are saying that the French only won the battle of marignano against the swiss thanks to alviano, i would say you are badly mistaken. French artilery decimated the packed "phalanx" of the swiss. Alviano arrived too late and only with 200 (or 300, i dont remember) horsemen which caused everyone to think that the main venetian army had arrived. But it had not - it was on its way. 300 men hardly had any impact on the outcome of the battle - it did, however, have a morale effect on the french and on the enemy. Still, it does not show any tactical skills from the part of Alviano.

On the other hand, Alviano lost Agnadello, which most historians say that it was a battle worse to Venice than Cannae was to the Romans. A good portion of the army was destroyed - and the other portion under Pitigliano and Gritti were met with heavy desertions after rumours of Alviano's defeat spread. And to make matters worse, the French could take almost every city that belonged to Venice in a few months unnoposed, while Venice took centuries to adquire all of them.

Alviano also got badly defeated at La Motta by the retreating Spanish - once again, he took the offensive, only to be badly repulsed and have his entire army fleeing the field by the desperate Spanish who were fighting for their lifes. Thousands of Venetian troops died in the struggle, including a high-ranking proveditor stabbed to death by his Spanish captors.

Not to forget the battle of Novarra - the french after losing their artilery, retreated and the venetians under alviano were left to burn and after alviano got defeated - once again - Spanish and German troops were allowed to move at ease in the veneto, laying siege to Padua, looting Mestre, burning patrician estates and even bombarding Venice itself. The disaster was complete.

I know that he had some early conficts against Imperial troops in which he had sucess, but considerating that Maximilian was not a great tactician and had a hard time paying his troops (he even had his entire army deserting him once), i do not know if these victories by the part of Alviano were pure luck or not (If you can provide me some information about these i would appreciate).

And even if he managed to win 3 battles against Maximilian due to his tactical skills, his other 3 defeats were far worse both strategically or tactically speaking. Marignano cant even be taken in consideration since he did not show any tactical skills in there.

what about his destruction of the austrians (HAB) in 4 pitched battles plus the capture of immense lands and major cities ?

march 1508 at the battle of TAI DI CADORE / RIO SECCO he killed 55% of the austrians plus another 15% surrendered - 6 of the 8 austrians leaders died and the other 2 surrender, ( i can supply names)

at AGNADELLO forces where
French: 2300 men of arms (=+5 men per man of arms, total = 11500), 4000 mounted crossbowmen , 6000 swiss infantry, 14000 gascon infantry
grand total 35000
Venice: 1600 men of arms (=+4 men per man of arms, total = 6400), 2500 mounted crossbowmen as well as stradiotti, 7000 infantry
grand total = 15900

other VEN army which was 5 miles away under pitigiano ( niccolo Orsini (real name)) had 19000 in which none engaged

also note, that while pitigiano troops dispersed, Gritti organised another VEN army in treviso and moved it to defend Padua against the austrians.

Lucio Malvezzo reorganized the remnants of a army and defeated the french in July 1509 at ISOLA DELLA SCALA , this stopped the french advance. The Mantua duke (Gonzaga)and most of his army was captured here , while the french fled. Mantua was knocked out of the war against VEN

Luigi da Porto ( original writer of romeo and juliet, 100 years before shakespeare) , helped gritti in cutting off austrian supply of men in Friuli.

d'aviano did beat the SPA in rovigo in september 1514

at MELEGNANO september 1515, he arrived with 700 cavalry with 8000 infantry arriving later

problem is that d'alviano , once captured at agnadello, and freed after a few years, became one of many generals with no extra special "higher rank", he was equal with
Gritti
malvezzo
Da Porto
Malatesta Baglioni
Renzo di Ceri
Mercurio Bua - austrian front
Niccolò Vendramin - austrian front
all these won battles.

All notes : from official Italian/venetian archives

What do you want to do for d'alviano ?, show the changes
 
Last edited:
I feel that 5 movement, 4 shock, and 4 fire, is just too much for someone such as him. Paradox gave him a whooping 322 for a reason. Now, if we compare Alviano with other leaders... we will fnd that something is terribly wrong in here...

For example the Portuguese leader... Pereira...

He got 4 movement, 4 fire and 5 shock. Basically the same amount of raw stats as Alviano! Now tell me please, HOW does Alviano match Alvares Pereira in any way possible?

Battle of Atoleiros - less than 2000 portuguese iirc defeat 6000 castilians, WITHOUT suffering a single loss!
Battle of Ajubarrota - less than 7000 portuguese (with 4000 peasants amongst them!) against 31000 castilians (of which a good deal were cavalry), and the castilians are badly defeated.
Battle of Valverde - again portuguese troops are badly outnumbered and in enemy territory but still manage to win.

But there are more leaders of known renown that are BASICALLY as good as Alviano (regarding stats), who was blamed even by Venetians themselves for their loses (notably by Gritti). Leaders such as Cromwell, Stefan Batory, Sobieski or even Morosini are basically the same as Alviano regarding stats.

And since these leaders were INDEED great, unlike Alviano, i think that Alviano should be reduced at least 1 point in each field. Notably in movement (5 is quite an exageration, specially during the late medieval era and even more absurd if we take other leaders, specially those who kept doing forced marches in the 1800's in consideration).
 
my recommended changes

historicalleader = {
id = { type = 6 id = 0163312 }
category = general
name = "B. Alviano" #Bartolomeo Orsini Alviano
startdate = {
year = 1498 1505
}
deathdate = {
day = 7
month = october
year = 1515
}
rank = 1
movement = 5 4
fire = 4 3
shock = 4
siege = 1
dormant = no
remark = "Agnadello, Rovigo, Cadore"
}

siege and shock to remain from other historical battles.

date change to reflect 2nd contract because he was under SPA from 1503 to end of 1504

I do agree with your comments.
 
These changes also do seem fine.

But wasnt he hired only in 1507 by Venice?