Hungary nearly always performs much better than what it did historically. Hence they should be made weaker.
-
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.
Hungary nearly always performs much better than what it did historically. Hence they should be made weaker.
Prussia-Brandenburg never makes it as good as it did in history. Which isn't a reason to make it stronger. The downfall of Hungary was strong aggresive Ottoman Empire, not some sort of weakness. The Turks are those in need of strenghtening.
Besides, there were some events in real history that were extremely unlikely to happen. Maybe downfall of Hungary is one of them?
NoOriginally posted by Maur13
Besides, there were some events in real history that were extremely unlikely to happen. Maybe downfall of Hungary is one of them?
Give me a break BiB. Compared to what period?????
Under the reign of Mathias Corvinus for example the Kingdom stretched from Silezia down to Bosnia, inlcuding Vienna, which city he captured in the early 1480s. Not forgetting about such minor things like vassalising the surrounding countries, and building one of Europes finest, and biggest academies (libreries) at that time.
Thus Your the argument is obviously nonsense. You wanna make this game histrically more accurate . Fine, but than You ought to be consequent. No independent Transsylvania, no independent Croatia, make magyar culture at least 70% of the Kingdom, and have the 2. highest state income (after Burgundy) in the XV.th century. Now that would be historacally accurate too! Without any question.
But than again, I think there are many other countries, which as You put it "perform much better than what they did historically", such as Sweden (wonder why?), Burgundy (which usually last until the end), Poland, and many others just to name but a few.
I do not mind what Paradox does, as far as they are consequent, and do not apply double standards!!!!
U missed out the fact when they were totally overrun in a few years
Yes, there's a bias. A bias towards making nations perform as close as possibel to what they actually achieved.
I don't consider arguments that include "Sweden does so much better than it shoud because Paradox is Swedish" are very useful
Now that is what I call an argument! So, following up on Your logic Poland should be weakened just because "in a few years" they were split up by Russia, Prussia, and Austria??? Come on BiB You can do better than that!!!!
BTW, what You consider to be a "few years" is infact a bit more than 120 years, that is almost 1/3 of the time period EU spans!!!!
As for the bias thing. OK, have to admit there is always some, it is very difficoult not to be biased, but one should really avoid going into extremes. Either way!
Cherioo
Originally posted by Attila the Hun
Now that is what I call an argument! So, following up on Your logic Poland should be weakened just because "in a few years" they were split up by Russia, Prussia, and Austria??? Come on BiB You can do better than that!!!!
BTW, what You consider to be a "few years" is infact a bit more than 120 years, that is almost 1/3 of the time period EU spans!!!!
As for the bias thing. OK, have to admit there is always some, it is very difficoult not to be biased, but one should really avoid going into extremes. Either way!
Cherioo
Poland is inderdeed made weaker than they would have if the partitions wouldn't have happened.
If it lasted 120 years then what is the period that they were great ? Bit hard if u get overran for 120 years
Hungary annexing Austria, never losing to the Turks, diploannexing various states and so on is extreme
Originally posted by BiB
The thing is they are made stronger
really? Never noticed thatRemember my "totally unrelevant" comparision of relative tax values? The Balkans and Anatolia are piss-poor places in EU II. I didn't computed manpower, but i suppose it's similar. This, along with lot of sheep-producing provinces, and penalty from beign other religion(orthodox) doesn't give Ottomans much cash (actually, they make some 16d per year. Give me a break. Are they supposed to use it on raising army from their pitful manpower pool?)
The Ottomans are too weak, not Hungary is too strong. After all, Ottomans conquered it only after they ruled all over Balkans, Anatolia, Egypt. Population of their Empire could rival HRE and France at that time.
And they weren't completly overrnun. Ottomans got only third of the country.
I won't comment Poland's events. They made Commonwealth area nuclear wasteland, totally useless for everyoneOriginally posted by BiB
Poland is inderdeed made weaker than they would have if the partitions wouldn't have happened.
Hungary annexing Austria, never losing to the Turks, diploannexing various states and so on is extreme
Well, given the fact Bohemians ruled the Austria hundred years before, it's not that surprising that Hungary, which was more powerful back then is beating them.
And i rarely see Hungary winning wars against Turks. That's mainly because Ottoman Empire is long annexed by Byzantium, Karaman, Trebizond, Wallachia, or Albania
Originally posted by Maur13
Remember my "totally unrelevant" comparision of relative tax values? The Balkans and Anatolia are piss-poor places in EU II. I didn't computed manpower, but i suppose it's similar. This, along with lot of sheep-producing provinces, and penalty from beign other religion(orthodox) doesn't give Ottomans much cash (actually, they make some 16d per year. Give me a break. Are they supposed to use it on raising army from their pitful manpower pool?)
The Ottomans are too weak, not Hungary is too strong. After all, Ottomans conquered it only after they ruled all over Balkans, Anatolia, Egypt. Population of their Empire could rival HRE and France at that time.
And they weren't completly overrnun. Ottomans got only third of the country.
I never said the Ottomans weren't too weak. They are. But Hungary is also too strong
What I meant was, that between 1419 and 1540 Hungary had its "golden age", especially under the reign of Matthias Corvinus ( up to 1490)not that they were overrun in 120 years!
You know BiB, this conversation would be much easier if You cared to look up some history books, using some hard evidence (facts is the key word here
), instead of just writing things without having absolutaly no idea what You are talking about.And as Maur13 correctly stated, although Hungary lost a decisive battle in 1526, the best the Turks could do was controlling merely 1/3 of it. Thus, sorry but You are wrong again here.
I certainly had never seen Hungary annexing Austria, but rather the other way around. Austria annexing (thanks to the very unrealistic inheritance event) Hungary, thus eventhough Hungary might have done well, no matter what happens, as Austria always inherits them.
Ok. So we can say Ottomans are too weak.Originally posted by BiB
I never said the Ottomans weren't too weak. They are. But Hungary is also too strong
But what do you want with Hunagry? That they are annexing all those small countries around like Siebenburgen, Croatia, or Austria?
It's related to HRE annexations problem, not too strong Hungary.
You want them to just implode despite wiped out Ottomans and Balkans beign total mess?
That would be ahistorical. After all, inheritance of Hungary event is quite stupid as it stands now.
The funny thing reading this thread is in my first GC, Turkey has annexed all of the Balkans up to the Crimea and over to just south of Magyar. Now if they could only sweep south into Palestine and Egypt!
Seriously though, the reason why the Ottomans were able to sweep into Europe as far as they did was that Europe was divided. There was no massive effort to stop them until 1683. Even in 1529 when they besieged Vienna the first time, there was little in the way of a concerted effort to stop them.
Seriously though, the reason why the Ottomans were able to sweep into Europe as far as they did was that Europe was divided. There was no massive effort to stop them until 1683. Even in 1529 when they besieged Vienna the first time, there was little in the way of a concerted effort to stop them.
Originally posted by Attila the Hun
And one should not forget Nicopolis too
Kinda outside the time period (1389?), but similar, yes.
Yup, but it was also a decisive loss, after which most of the Balkans fell, eventually leading up to the siege of Nandorfehervar (todays Belgrad), wich gave some breathing room for Hungary for the next 70 years or so to come. Actually this victory was considered the biggest christian victory of that time. (this event somehow avoided Paradoxs attention too)
Ah, yes an info to BiB (as I guess others know this
) comemorating the victory and honouring the victorious general Hunyady (also Governor of Hungary) the Pope ordered bells to be ringed each day at noontime troughout the christian world, which remained until today.
My history book tells me : 1419 - nicely sized Hungary. Few years down the path - quite vanished
I never said the Austria inheritance thing was working fine