• 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.
YodaMaster said:
Something like this:
Code:
	landunit = {
		id = { type = 9423 id = 664 }
		name = "2nd Army"
		location = 370
		infantry = 5000
		cavalry = 3000
	}
	landunit = {
		id = { type = 9423 id = 665 }
		name = "1st Army"
		location = 365
		infantry = 5000
		cavalry = 2000
	}
And Filippo Arcelli will be in Veneto with the 2nd army from start.

Btw, couldn't we have Venetian names for both armies?
Same problem with "1st Fleet".

For Hungary:
Code:
	landunit = {
		id = { type = 9423 id = 810 }
		name = "Royal Magyar Army"
		location = 325
		infantry = 5000
		cavalry = 8000
		artillery = 0
	}
	landunit = {
		id = { type = 9423 id = 811 }
		name = "Balkáni Hadsereg"
		location = 366
		infantry = 5000
		cavalry = 2000
		artillery = 0
	}
Name for army is from armynames.csv. better idea?


venetian army names 1200-1670
Provisionati di San Marco .......had red and white angled striped tabbards
Cavalieri di San Marco...........Only military order venice ever had
Compagni della Calza...........wore one red and one white coloured leggings
Cernide da tera...........all troops remaining after their leader (condottieri) died

and the oldest where
The Lagunari corp born in 1200 in Venice named "fanti da mar" ,the sea infantry or modern marines; their activity was ,more or less, the same of the corsar Drake... a legalized piracy.
 
Last edited:
Which one(s) for setup then?

And current entries in armynames.csv are:
VEN;Soldati da Urbino
VEN;Soldati da Gascon
VEN;Zagdari
VEN;Soldati da Rimini
VEN;Fanti da Treviso
VEN;Fanti da Friuli
VEN;Fanti da Guazzo
VEN;Fanti da Cattaro
VEN;Fanti da Spalato
VEN;Fanti da Zara
VEN;Guardaroli
VEN;Da Mare Evvoia
VEN;Da Mare Corfu
VEN;Da Mare Zante
VEN;Bravi da Venezia
VEN;Turcopoli Cypro
VEN;Scappoli da Lago
VEN;Compagni da Calza
VEN;Sfakia da Candia
VEN;Lanze Spezzate
VEN;Stradioti Grecii
VEN;Stradioti Slavi
VEN;Cappeletti Croati
VEN;Cavalli da Verona
VEN;Fanti Istriani
VEN;Arsenalotti
VEN;Aganzi Epirote

I amended post #660 with looted provinces (Istria and Dalmatia).
 
YodaMaster said:
Which one(s) for setup then?

And current entries in armynames.csv are:
VEN;Soldati da Urbino
VEN;Soldati da Gascon
VEN;Zagdari
VEN;Soldati da Rimini
VEN;Fanti da Treviso
VEN;Fanti da Friuli
VEN;Fanti da Guazzo
VEN;Fanti da Cattaro
VEN;Fanti da Spalato
VEN;Fanti da Zara
VEN;Guardaroli
VEN;Da Mare Evvoia
VEN;Da Mare Corfu
VEN;Da Mare Zante
VEN;Bravi da Venezia
VEN;Turcopoli Cypro
VEN;Scappoli da Lago
VEN;Compagni da Calza
VEN;Sfakia da Candia
VEN;Lanze Spezzate
VEN;Stradioti Grecii
VEN;Stradioti Slavi
VEN;Cappeletti Croati
VEN;Cavalli da Verona
VEN;Fanti Istriani
VEN;Arsenalotti
VEN;Aganzi Epirote

I amended post #660 with looted provinces (Istria and Dalmatia).


use either
VEN;Lanze Spezzate
VEN;Arsenalotti
VEN;Compagni da Calza


as for the 1st fleet
It was called .......Capitano in Colfo (not Golfo) inially a title it was used as the the fleet that patrolled the ventian Gulf up to zara

another fleet name is
Capitano della Guardia di Candia..........area of patrol was crete to the morea
 
changes and new events.........your thoughts

#(1575-1577) The Plague in Venice by Bordic (effect)
event = {
id = 326033 #triggered by ProvinceSpec_338024
trigger = { owned = { province = 370 data = -1 } } #Venice
random = no
country = VEN
name = "EVENTNAME326033" #Death in Venice
desc = "EVENTHIST326033"
#-#In 1575, during the epidemic of plague that ravaged the city, Veronica Franco was forced to leave Venice and lost much of her wealth when her house and possessions were looted. On her return in 1577, she defended herself with dignity in an Inquisition for witchcraft and bringing the plague to Venice (a common complaint lodged against courtesans in those days). The charges were dropped. A well-educated woman, Veronica Franco wrote two volumes of poetry, Terze rime in 1575 and Lettere familiari a diversi in 1580.

action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME326033A" #Arrgh!
command = { type = stability value = -2 }
command = { type = population which = -2 value = -11000 }
}
}

....................................................................

#(1627) Guastalla succeeds in Mantua
#by Aylo1
event = {
id = 326068 #triggered by MAN_220031 B
random = no
country = VEN
name = "EVENTNAME326068" #Mantova's Successor
desc = "EVENTHIST326068"
#-#Vincenzo di Mantova's death initiated a struggle between his cousins' Carlo I di Nevers and Ferrante II di Guastalla. Guastalla marched on Mantova with the backing of his allies - Imperatore Ferdinando II, Filipo IV of Spain and Carlo Emmanule I di Savoja. As the conflict influenced the balance of power in Italy, the Serenìsima entered on Nevers side. However the Armies of San Marco were defeated trying to relieve the Siege of Mantova (1629), with the Republic having no say in the Peace of Susa (Apr 1630), Regensburg (Oct 1630) or Cherasco (1631). What it did get was the plague brought by the invading French and Germans - costing 50,000 Venetian lives.

action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME326068A" #Protect the balance of power
command = { type = casusbelli which = MAN value = 36 }
command = { type = casusbelli which = HAB value = 36 }
command = { type = casusbelli which = SPA value = 36 }
command = { type = population which = VEN value = -30000 }
command = { type = relation which = MAN value = -150 }
command = { type = relation which = HAB value = -150 }
command = { type = relation which = SPA value = -100 }
command = { type = relation which = SAV value = -100 }
command = { type = relation which = FRA value = 100 }
command = { type = relation which = PAP value = 100 }
command = { type = alliance which = FRA }
command = { type = alliance which = PAP }
command = { type = stability value = -1 }
}
}


.....................................................................

new
#(1505) Fontego dei Tedeschi
#by Toio
event = {
id = 326075
random = no
country = VEN
name = "EVENTNAME326075" #Fontego dei Tedeschi
desc = "EVENTHIST326075"
#-#First constructed in 1228, the Fondego dei Tedeschi was a combined palazzo, warehouse, and restricted living quarters for its population, in this case mainly Germanic merchants from cities such as Nuremberg and Augsburg. The building was rebuilt between 1505 and 1508, after its destruction in a fire. The Palazzo outer facade was painted by famous artists Titian and Giorgione, but their work has not survived the Venetian climate. Its architecture is typical of the cinquecento Veneto Gothic style. Like the Fondaco dei Turchi, the German merchants arrived shortly after the building was originally constructed in the thirteen century, dealt in gold and silver ( from northern Europe ) trade at the Venetian auctions and stayed until the Napoleonic occupation of 1797.

date = { day = 11 month = april year = 1505 }
offset = 300
deathdate = { day = 7 month = december year = 1508 }


action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME326075A" #rebuild it better than before
command = { type = relation which = HAB value = 50 }
command = { type = relation which = BAY value = 50 }
command = { type = gainbuilding which = 370 value = cityrights } #Veneto
command = { type = stability value = 1 }
}
}



Fondaco (in italian ) (Fontego in Venetian) is also an English word meaning the same thing. Another thing I have learnt today





new
#(1441) The Threat
#by toio
event = {
id = 326076
trigger = {
owned = { province = 391 data = -1 } #Romagna
control = { province = 391 data = -1 } #Romagna
}
random = no
country = VEN
name = "EVENTNAME326076" #The Threat
desc = "EVENTHIST326076"
#-#Though the people of Venice generally remained orthodox Roman Catholics, the state of Venice was notable for its freedom from religious fanaticism and it enacted not a single execution for religious heresy during the Counter-Reformation. This apparent lack of zeal contributed to Venice's frequent conflicts with the Papacy. Venice was threatened with the interdict on a number of occasions and twice suffered its imposition. The second, most famous, occasion was on April 27, 1509, by order of Pope Julius II. Another earlier Interdict was on the death of the last of the Da Polenta family, Ostasio III, who was ousted by the Republic of Venice in 1441 with aid by the Romagnan people, the city was then annexed to the Venetian territories. Other Romagnan cities followed in the next 40 years, Rimini, Cervia and Faenza. Ravenna the biggest city was ruled by Venice until 1509, when the area was invaded in the course of the Italian Wars.

date = { day = 20 month = february year = 1441 }
offset = 20
deathdate = { day = 20 month = december year = 1509 }

action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME326076A" #Placed on an Interdict
command = { type = badboy value = 4 }
command = { type = stability value = -1 }
command = { type = relation which = PAP value = -100 }
}
}

 
Last edited:
Toio said:
#-#Though the people of Venice generally remained orthodox Roman Catholics, the state of Venice was notable for its freedom from religious fanaticism and it enacted not a single execution for religious heresy during the Counter-Reformation. This apparent lack of zeal contributed to Venice's frequent conflicts with the Papacy. Venice was threatened with the interdict on a number of occasions and twice suffered its imposition. The second, most famous, occasion was on April 27, 1509, by order of Pope Julius II.

AFAIK these widely known interdictions were political ones - when Venice clashed with Pope as secular ruler during French-Italian (-Habsburg) wars at the end of XVth and beginning of XVith century. It has nothing to do with freedom of religion.
 
zdlugasz said:
AFAIK these widely known interdictions were political ones - when Venice clashed with Pope as secular ruler during French-Italian (-Habsburg) wars at the end of XVth and beginning of XVith century. It has nothing to do with freedom of religion.

there where 11 interdictions from the 4th crusades to the 18th century.

Paolo sarpi 1605 is another

1482 ferrara war

1468 domenican inquisition

1495 accepting jews leaving SPA and POR bound for the Levant

etc etc
 
Better use Veneto (370) instead of capital (implicit) for the losses of population in first two events.

I'm not sure I understand 17017 triggering new 326076.
Shouldn't 326076 be slept in VEN_17017 B and not triggered in A?
Shouldn't it be 17017 instead of 170071 in the trigger of 326076?
 
Last edited:
YodaMaster said:
Better use Veneto (370) instead of capital (implicit) for the losses of population in first two events.

I'm not sure I understand 17017 triggering new 326076.
Shouldn't 326076 be slept in VEN_17017 B and not triggered in A?
Shouldn't it be 17017 instead of 170071 in the trigger of 326076?


fixed and amended the events, check the new changes

Also added a piece of historical text to top event.
 
Toio said:
fixed and amended the events, check the new changes
Ok but population losses are still for -2 and not 370 and there is no need to replace -1 with VEN in trigger of 326033. -1 is the correct and preferable value for events where involved country is the same tag.
 
YodaMaster said:
Ok but population losses are still for -2 and not 370 and there is no need to replace -1 with VEN in trigger of 326033. -1 is the correct and preferable value for events where involved country is the same tag.


done.........the flu really knocks me about :D
 
My current game is with Venice and I'd like to suggest a few changes to some events. As always, I'm willing to make these changes myself if there are no objections.

1) If Milan and Mantua are taken out too early, Venice never gets a core on Mantua. However, Venice still gets the events where she can choose to "Look West" or "Look East". If Venice chooses to "Look West" (choice a), she gains a core on Romagna because of expansion into cities influenced by the Pope. This doesn't make much sense if Venice doesn't even own Mantua or doesn't have a core on it. I would include ownership of Mantua into trigger for this event and add it as a core in addition to Romagna in choice a to fix the scenario where conflict with Milan never happens and Venice never gets a core on Mantua.

2) If Venice is too successful in pushing the Ottomans back from the Balkans, Morea may never be conquered by the Ottomans and Venice never gets a core on it. This is ok while Morea exists, but if Venice conquers or diplo-annexes Morea, wouldn't it be logical for Venice to have a core there since she already had several colonies on the island? I suggest an event in which Venice gains a core on Morea if it owns the province and Ottomans don't own Hellas. It would mean that the island is no longer in immediate danger from the Ottomans.

3) I've noticed some heavy typos and bad translations in two events for Venice. One of them is the building of stone bridge. Can't remember the other. I'd like to locate and fix those event descriptions.
 
Lord Grave said:
My current game is with Venice and I'd like to suggest a few changes to some events. As always, I'm willing to make these changes myself if there are no objections.

1) If Milan and Mantua are taken out too early, Venice never gets a core on Mantua. However, Venice still gets the events where she can choose to "Look West" or "Look East". If Venice chooses to "Look West" (choice a), she gains a core on Romagna because of expansion into cities influenced by the Pope. This doesn't make much sense if Venice doesn't even own Mantua or doesn't have a core on it. I would include ownership of Mantua into trigger for this event and add it as a core in addition to Romagna in choice a to fix the scenario where conflict with Milan never happens and Venice never gets a core on Mantua.

2) If Venice is too successful in pushing the Ottomans back from the Balkans, Morea may never be conquered by the Ottomans and Venice never gets a core on it. This is ok while Morea exists, but if Venice conquers or diplo-annexes Morea, wouldn't it be logical for Venice to have a core there since she already had several colonies on the island? I suggest an event in which Venice gains a core on Morea if it owns the province and Ottomans don't own Hellas. It would mean that the island is no longer in immediate danger from the Ottomans.

3) I've noticed some heavy typos and bad translations in two events for Venice. One of them is the building of stone bridge. Can't remember the other. I'd like to locate and fix those event descriptions.

"looking west" means anywhere except the balkans and Levant.

i agree and disagree with your comments

firstly historical
Venice "looked west" prior to 1400, they again "looked west" in the 1426-1430 Milan wars in which Venice took Eastern Lombardy's form Milan and held it until 1797. cities such as Bergamo, Brescia and Cremona to name 3.

Venice again "looked west" in 1482 - Ferrara War in which they took Rovigo and Polesine and still hold them today.

So, the "looked west" event with date 1503 is an error (ahistorical) from the start.
I recommend we have a 1480 date.

On Venice needing to own mantua for event to fire is wrong, as Venice owned mush of Romagna from 1441 to 1509. (no land connection to Veneto was needed)

I do agree with you that Venice should get a core on Mantua from that event , BUT do they really need it as the military leader of Venetian troops at the battle of Fornova 1494 (against the french) was the Duke of Mantua.
But Venice did claim Mantua in august 1509 when the area was captured by Venice (with its Duke)

On the Morea issue.
apart from the 1461 event to gain a core, I do not see it as needed until 1685 when Morosini captured the whole of the Morea and retained it until 1715.

So I disagree with any other core for Morea except on what we have.
 
Toio said:
So, the "looked west" event with date 1503 is an error (ahistorical) from the start.
I recommend we have a 1480 date.

On Venice needing to own mantua for event to fire is wrong, as Venice owned mush of Romagna from 1441 to 1509. (no land connection to Veneto was needed)

I do agree with you that Venice should get a core on Mantua from that event , BUT do they really need it as the military leader of Venetian troops at the battle of Fornova 1494 (against the french) was the Duke of Mantua.
But Venice did claim Mantua in august 1509 when the area was captured by Venice (with its Duke)

You obviously know more about the history of Venice so why don't you fix this event or tell me exactly what to do with it? Let me be more accurate in stating the problems I discovered with Mantua and Romagna:

1) Venice gets a core on Mantua in VEN_326054, VEN_326062, VEN_326063, VEN_326026. First three events require some Milanese events, while the last one requires MAN to exist. If both countries are eliminated early, Venice never gets a core on Mantua.

2) In VEN_17017, event description states that Venice saw that "only long-term hope of survival lay in building up a broad mainland bulwark". Romagna isn't much of a Bulwark if Venice's enemies still hold Mantua, so I thought Venice should either get a core on Mantua in this event just in case she didn't already, or this event shouldn't fire at all (can't see a chance in Romagna if it is not on their borders). On the other hand, if this event is totally wrong in the first place, then it should be totally changed.

On the Morea issue.
apart from the 1461 event to gain a core, I do not see it as needed until 1685 when Morosini captured the whole of the Morea and retained it until 1715.

So I disagree with any other core for Morea except on what we have.[/QUOTE]

The problem with 1461 event (VEN_326049) is that it only fires if TUR owns Morea. It makes sense since choice a is "Stemming the Turkish tide". However, if Morea survives 1716 and is then conquered or diplo-annexed by Venice, Venice will never get a core on Morea, and I think she should because she always had some presence on the island.
 
Lord Grave said:
You obviously know more about the history of Venice so why don't you fix this event or tell me exactly what to do with it? Let me be more accurate in stating the problems I discovered with Mantua and Romagna:

1) Venice gets a core on Mantua in VEN_326054, VEN_326062, VEN_326063, VEN_326026. First three events require some Milanese events, while the last one requires MAN to exist. If both countries are eliminated early, Venice never gets a core on Mantua.

2) In VEN_17017, event description states that Venice saw that "only long-term hope of survival lay in building up a broad mainland bulwark". Romagna isn't much of a Bulwark if Venice's enemies still hold Mantua, so I thought Venice should either get a core on Mantua in this event just in case she didn't already, or this event shouldn't fire at all (can't see a chance in Romagna if it is not on their borders). On the other hand, if this event is totally wrong in the first place, then it should be totally changed.

On the Morea issue.
apart from the 1461 event to gain a core, I do not see it as needed until 1685 when Morosini captured the whole of the Morea and retained it until 1715.

So I disagree with any other core for Morea except on what we have.

The problem with 1461 event (VEN_326049) is that it only fires if TUR owns Morea. It makes sense since choice a is "Stemming the Turkish tide". However, if Morea survives 1716 and is then conquered or diplo-annexed by Venice, Venice will never get a core on Morea, and I think she should because she always had some presence on the island.[/QUOTE]

I have already recommended that event 17017 be changed to 1480 , I also see we need a text fix

On mantua......Venice IIRC only held mantua for a period of about 6 years. BUT if modders refer to mantua province as also part of the Duchy of Ferrara, then we are talking about another matter. Mantua has no sea connection.

Whats the issue with the cores ? what do you think they represent in the game?
 
changes for core on morea

#(1461-1716) Heavy Morean involvement
event = {
id = 326049
trigger = {
OR = {
owned = { province = 359 data = TUR } #Hellas

owned = { province = 360 data = TUR } #Morea
}
atwar = no
stability = 3
}
random = no
country = VEN
name = "EVENTNAME326049" #The Morean cities
desc = "EVENTHIST326049"
#-#Turkish control of the strategic Morean peninsula was necessary for Mehmed's own project of tackling Italy in time. Therefore, the great sultan personally led campaigns in 1458 and again in 1460 that extinguished the last remnants of Byzantine sovereignty in the Morea. The definitive annexation of the peninsula by Turkey deprived the Christian west of its most valuable base for any anti-Turkish crusade. Venetian involvement in the Morea was always present and due to the anarchy prevailing in the Morea prior to 1423, made Venice decide to acquire the entire peninsula. Many meetings between Venetian envoys and envoys representing emperor Manuel and Theodore II of Morea came to nothing. Although the Venetian republic failed to annex the Morea in 1423, it strengthened and enlarged its valuable Morean colonies. From 1423, Venice acquired the castle of Grisi midway between Modon and Coron and also purchased Port-de Jonc to go with its previous purchases of Lepanto, Patras and Messenia. With the fall of Morea, Venice decided to step up its claim on the peninsula.

date = { day = 0 month = april year = 1461 }
offset = 90
deathdate = { day = 0 month = may year = 1716 }

action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME326049A" #Stemming the turkish tide
command = { type = addcore which = 360 } #Morea
command = { type = casusbelli which = TUR value = 60 }
command = { type = galleys which = -2 value = 20 }
}
action_b = {
name = "ACTIONNAME326049B" #Accept the loss and leave
command = { type = merchants value = -3 }
command = { type = desertion which = -1 value = 1000 }
command = { type = relation which = TUR value = 100 }
command = { type = treasury value = -200 } #loss of trade
}
}


this should fix the issue, (tested it )
If morea is still owned by Morea , then the core is still justified as a historical event because Venice would still have a monopoly on all the major cities until they lost them in the 1499-1503 war with the Turk


..................................................................

my recommendations for "looking west"

#(1482-1484) The Polesine
event = {
id = 326023
trigger = {
OR = {
owned = { province = 390 data = MLO }
owned = { province = 390 data = PAM }
owned = { province = 390 data = NAP }
}
NOT = { exists = MAN }

}
random = no
country = VEN
name = "EVENTNAME326023" #The Polesine
desc = "EVENTHIST326023"
#-#Venice was in an expansionist mood in the terra firma. Salt which was reserved to Venice by a commercial pact in the Adriatic area, had begun to be controlled by the city of the Este at Comacchio, this appeared as a direct threat to mainland interests of the Serenissima. The immediate casus belli, was a minor infraction of prerogatives, Venice maintained a representative in Ferrara with the high title of visdominio, under whose care were the Venetian community in Este lands. in 1481, overreaching his mandate with the arrest of a priest for debt, the visdominio was excommunicated by the vicar of the bishop of Ferrara, and forced out of the city. On this excuse, war was declared. Allied with Venice, besides the papal troops were contingents supplied by the Republic of Genoa and William VIII, Marquis of Montferra . At the peace of 1484 Venice was allowed to retain 'the Polesine', which she had conquered.

date = { day = 13 month = june year = 1482 }
offset = 30
deathdate = { day = 3 month = november year = 1484 }

action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME326023A" #Support the Pope, careful
command = { type = treasury value = -100 }
command = { type = badboy value = 4 }
command = { type = domestic which = aristocracy value = -2 }
command = { type = CAV which = -2 value = 5000 }
command = { type = casusbelli which = PAM value = 27 }
command = { type = addcore which = 391 } #Romagna
command = { type = addcore which = 390 } #Mantua

}
action_b = {
name = "ACTIONNAME326023B" #Let it be
command = { type = population which = -2 value = 2000 }
command = { type = revoltrisk which = 6 value = 2 }
command = { type = relation which = PAP value = -50 }
}
}
 
Last edited:
Toio said:
this should fix the issue, (tested it )
If morea is still owned by Morea , then the core is still justified as a historical event because Venice would still have a monopoly on all the major cities until they lost them in the 1499-1503 war with the Turk

I don't think VEN should get a core on Morea if SPR is still alive. It would give them a Casus Belli to declare war on SPR and annex them by force which they historically didn't have (otherwise, they would have done it). However, their presence and interest in Morea gives them perfect right to liberate Morea from Ottomans if it is conquered (Stemming the Turkish tide). In that sense, the existing event is perfectly sufficient. However, if SPR is annexed by VEN or if VEN conquers Morea from someone other than TUR (unlikely), then they will never get a core on Morea. I think their long presence on the island gives them a right to have a core on Morea which makes the province more efficient, easier to convert and more difficult to loose in a war.



Toio said:
#(1482-1484) The Polesine

Nice event, but the current event that gives Romagna as core to VEN states that there was a conflict between Papal and Venetian authority in Romagna. In my game with VEN, I actually had Papal States in my alliance until that event which destroyed our relations (because Papal States also gets a core on Romagna). When and if VEN conquers Romagna, wouldn't it be realistic to have another event that asks VEN whether she wants to keep the region or turn it over to the Pope? Choice a would be to keep it (more historical I think) and get a relation drop with Papal States and some badboy points. Choice b would be to give Romagna to the Pope and loose some BB and gain relation boost. What do you think?
 
Lord Grave said:
I don't think VEN should get a core on Morea if SPR is still alive. It would give them a Casus Belli to declare war on SPR and annex them by force which they historically didn't have (otherwise, they would have done it). However, their presence and interest in Morea gives them perfect right to liberate Morea from Ottomans if it is conquered (Stemming the Turkish tide). In that sense, the existing event is perfectly sufficient. However, if SPR is annexed by VEN or if VEN conquers Morea from someone other than TUR (unlikely), then they will never get a core on Morea. I think their long presence on the island gives them a right to have a core on Morea which makes the province more efficient, easier to convert and more difficult to loose in a war.

I think that it is justified especially since the northern Morea (duchy of Achaea ) was mostlry owned by Venice anyway and with the Morea section of Modon, Coron, and the capital Nauphlion already under Venetian ownership, it seems that it would evenetually be venetian. With this

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.




Nice event, but the current event that gives Romagna as core to VEN states that there was a conflict between Papal and Venetian authority in Romagna. In my game with VEN, I actually had Papal States in my alliance until that event which destroyed our relations (because Papal States also gets a core on Romagna). When and if VEN conquers Romagna, wouldn't it be realistic to have another event that asks VEN whether she wants to keep the region or turn it over to the Pope? Choice a would be to keep it (more historical I think) and get a relation drop with Papal States and some badboy points. Choice b would be to give Romagna to the Pope and loose some BB and gain relation boost. What do you think?

The Ferrara was was like your game, PAP, GEN, SAV and VEN in alliance against NAP, MLO, TOS and Ferrara.
Once the PAP realised that VEN was marching and conquering too fast, the PAP switched sides. The PAP wanted Ferrara themselves

The war came to a conclusion with the Treaty of Bagnolo, signed on August 7, 1484. Ercole ceded the territory of Rovigo in the Polesine to Venice, lost at an early stage of the fighting, and the Venetian forces that were occupying the other parts of Ferrara withdrew. With this Ercole avoided the absorption of Ferrara, seat of the Este, into the Papal States.

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