An idea on the Burgundian successsion

[bleakie]

In the the Dutch & Burgundian DD last week, we learn that there would be an event leading to the partition of Burgundy if the ruler of Burgundy dies with no heir before 1500, and it is made more likely to occur by a national penalty that decreases the chance of having an heir by 33% (doesn't know what the 33% means, but this is not important). The arrangement is fine for me, but I have come up with an idea to complement the partition event.
The idea is to remove the 1500 time limit for the partition event, and to add a national decision for Burgundy, which I name as "Request the Crown of Lotharingia/Burgundy", with the following conditions and effects:
Conditions:
1) At peace;
2) Not a vassal or junior part of a personal union;
3) Owns and have cores in Bourgogne, Brabant and Lorraine;
4) High prestige;
5) Not the emperor;
6) Good relations with the Emperor;
7) Country has higher diplomatic rating than the Emperor;
8) Number of provinces exceeding, say, 20.
Effects:
1) Burgundy vassalizes all HRE states west of the Rhine;
2) The partition event is deactivated;
3) Burgundy gains a national modifier that offsets the heir penalty and gives a small prestige bonus.

The main purpose of adding this decision is to give the player a way to actively fight against the fate, rather than waiting passively till the artificial safe moment of 1 January 1500, which I think matches the spirit of EU4. The decision also adds historical flavor to the state of Burgundy. Please leave your ideas and comments about this if you have any.

PS: Thanks for the inspiration by the discussion in the Dutch and Burgundian DD thread.

 

[Evie HJ]

The free vassalization would be incredibly broken, though.

 

[Rubidium]

The main purpose of adding this decision is to give the player a way to actively fight against the fate, rather than waiting passively till the artificial safe moment of 1 January 1500, which I think matches the spirit of EU4. The decision also adds historical flavor to the state of Burgundy. Please leave your ideas and comments about this if you have any.

While forming Lotharingia would be cool, didn't the DD specifically state that the partition only happens to AI Burgundy?

I imagine it's like Hawaii, the Congo Free State, etc. in Victoria II: it's there for historical flavor, but they don't want humans to risk a game over for something outside their control.

 

[WeissRaben]

While forming Lotharingia would be cool, didn't the DD specifically state that the partition only happens to AI Burgundy?

I imagine it's like Hawaii, the Congo Free State, etc. in Victoria II: it's there for historical flavor, but they don't want humans to risk a game over for something outside their control.

But the human STILL has to plow through the heir penalty, and I would not dislike to see this implemented for the AI as well (vassalization not included)...if I cared about something I'm going to remove either way. It is an excellent idea, but it invalidates the "BURGUNDY IS DANGEROUS FOR BALANCE" mindset and makes the -33% heir addition useless - it's there to ensure that Burgundy will probably disappear, why countering it with an instrument to make so that Burgundy DOESN'T disappear?

 

[L'Afrique]

I would like to see Burgundy's quest for a crown represented, but not by free vassalizations. I've always thought their should be three methods:

1. France. Simple, requires owning Paris and owning/vassalizing other french provinces. Then you can form France just like any other french minor.

2. Lotharingia. Requires owning the Low Countries, Burgundy, and Lorraine. Then you've got to either kick the crap out of the Emperor, earn it diplomatically, or be Emperor yourself. No free vassals though, just boosts/reforms/cores.

3. The Netherlands. For a more enlightened Duke. Be friends with either the Pope or the Emperor, as well as France. Hand over your traditional burgundian lands in exchange for a buttload of bonuses and a tag switch.

 

[Vishaing]

In My Mod those are some of the ways you can get France to leave you alone, but it's a bit more elaborate than just a single decision.

 

[unmerged(139685)]

I would like to see Burgundy's quest for a crown represented, but not by free vassalizations. I've always thought their should be three methods:

1. France. Simple, requires owning Paris and owning/vassalizing other french provinces. Then you can form France just like any other french minor.

2. Lotharingia. Requires owning the Low Countries, Burgundy, and Lorraine. Then you've got to either kick the crap out of the Emperor, earn it diplomatically, or be Emperor yourself. No free vassals though, just boosts/reforms/cores.

3. The Netherlands. For a more enlightened Duke. Be friends with either the Pope or the Emperor, as well as France. Hand over your traditional burgundian lands in exchange for a buttload of bonuses and a tag switch.

I don't see it as necessary to ditch the French lands for option 3. Cultural differences didn't stop the Austrians either - merely inconvenienced them, and those differences have their own dynamic (increased revolt risk etc) to take into account. From a de jure point of view, there's no difference with eg. the county of Flanders, which was technically a vassal of France. And William of Orange did maintain a small fief in... Orange, France because it had a higher title than his holdings in Holland.

 

[Rubidium]

I don't see it as necessary to ditch the French lands for option 3. Cultural differences didn't stop the Austrians either - merely inconvenienced them, and those differences have their own dynamic (increased revolt risk etc) to take into account. From a de jure point of view, there's no difference with eg. the county of Flanders, which was technically a vassal of France. And William of Orange did maintain a small fief in... Orange, France because it had a higher title than his holdings in Holland.

The current option to do that (hand over France to become the Netherlands) is almost certainly there mainly to allow people to play as the Dutch from the start date. It's not really meant to be historical.

 

[unmerged(139685)]

The current option to do that (hand over France to become the Netherlands) is almost certainly there mainly to allow people to play as the Dutch from the start date. It's not really meant to be historical.

Which is a shame, because the important decisions of Burgundy were already taken in the Low Countries already. Just a formal recognition of that fact ought to suffice.

 

[DanubianCossak]

Am i the only person here who is confused with all this?

What we are offered here is basically a deterministic (or semi deterministic at best) mechanic thats supposed to simulate an event from real life history, after the game start date.

My question is: why do we need this, at all?

Instead of an event, decision, or whatever, thats designed to handle this one case from history, wouldnt it be MUCH better we had the normal personal union mechanic upgraded so that it can handle this on its own.

It was my understanding that EU3 compared to EU1 and 2 was supposed to be the end of coded history being played out, i really dont understand whats the point of this whole thing.

 

[Evie HJ]

The point is that EU3 went and threw the baby out with the bathwater, creating a game that most of the time had neither historical realism (because games often went haywire from anything realistic) nor historical flavor (because all the flavor was thrown out to get rid of the deterministic).

Still a good game from a gaming perspective, and a better game than EU2, but EU2 remained more flavorful. EU4 is an attempt to capture the flavor without so much determinism.

Moreover, Burgundy was a very unique situation, due to being de jure a vassal of France and holding lands within both France and the Empire, while being de facto an independent state. The normal personal union mechanisms would completely fail at representing what happened to Burgundy (inability to represent France's de jure claim to the Burgundian French provinces: France would simply end up fighting a succession war to impose a personal union without any core/claims on the relevant provinces), and changing the PU mechanism so it fits would result in ridiculous results (Austria getting cores on Spain when it challenges French succession in the War of Spanish Succession).

You'd have to make special PU rules that apply only to Burgundy, only in specific situations, and at that point it's just plain easier - and more moddable for the fans who want to change it - to make it an event instead.

 

[DanubianCossak]

Well in that case, i think its just me then. I think that you gotta make a choice, either you are going to make a game that recreates history or a game that starts from a certain date and is free for all sandbox. Pick one and stick to it, both things are valid, and as far as im concerned both would make cool games. But they definitely shouldnt make a game thats a bit of both. You have a whole world with very bare/basic mechanics and then you have 1 place (Burgundy), which gets its own thing. Yeah i get it, its in Europe, and lots of people like it (like Byzies), but i still think they should rather make some entirely new game mechanic, some kind of structured system that handles this situation there, and anywhere else in the world. Even the thing you mentioned, special relation between France and Burgundy, that could be made, theres already something very similar in Victoria 2, and even in CK2 we have de jure realms etc.

A structured mechanic > single solution, and adds much more flavor on a much bigger scale.

 

[Evie HJ]

A structured mechanic = a lot more work than a simple event, too.

There's only so much time Paradox has for designing structured mechanics for the game, if they want it to be both a polished release (ala CK2), and released in a timely manner. They have to chose which they want to design.

As for Burgundy getting unique mechanism, 30-ish countries (Tier 1-3) are getting unique mechanism (via events) reproducing things that happened to them, and that are hard to fit into a structured mechanic.

As for me, I think trying to strike a balance between the two is perfectly legitimate, and probably make for the better game. EU3 went too far into sandbox for my taste; EU2 was too inflexible (you are country X and it is year Y? HAVE AN EVENT!)

 

[Vishaing]

The factors that led to the partition of Burgundy are already all present at the beginning of the game, so It's okay in my mind to have an event specifically dealing with how those factors play out.

Of Course, I don't consider the eventual fate of Burgundy to be truly Burgundy Specific, but rather to grow out of the natural instability caused by being De-Jure the vassal of another Realm even when one has De-Facto Independence, combined with the fact that for all of their pretenses to the Divine Right of Kings, European Monarchs were more than willing to arbitrarily use supposed Succession crises to further their own aims. See also the War of Austrian Succession, which I would consider to be more than easily framed within the same general situation of the Partition of Burgundy; A Large and Powerful state with many Rivals nominally under the rule of a larger external polity finds itself with a Disputed Succession and its neighbors exploit that for their own ends.

A Semi-Generic event chain that can represent such a thing would make a dynamic and interesting situation where the existing balance of Power can be rapidly altered and can lead to unpredictable results that nevertheless grow from an identifiable situation and give you multiple paths to attempt to resolve or mitigate said situation.

Good thing I've already got that event chain programmed.

 

[L'Afrique]

I don't see it as necessary to ditch the French lands for option 3. Cultural differences didn't stop the Austrians either - merely inconvenienced them, and those differences have their own dynamic (increased revolt risk etc) to take into account. From a de jure point of view, there's no difference with eg. the county of Flanders, which was technically a vassal of France. And William of Orange did maintain a small fief in... Orange, France because it had a higher title than his holdings in Holland.

My thoughts weren't so much about different culture, I just think the King of France would be pretty intimidated by the Pope or the Emperor handing a king's crown to one of his nominal vassals, and the Pope/Emperor himself might be concerned with the balance of power as well. I definitely think you should need to hand over French crown lands as a show of goodwill, or potentially face war. (The Pope/Emperor who gives you the crown might support you, of course, but again they might prefer you give up some land to ensure you don't get too strong.)

The poster above me brings up a good point. The burgundian situation that led to the eventual partition was already in motion in 1444, even in a fairly open game, there really should be mechanics in place for stuff like that. That was one of my biggest annoyances in EU3-start a day before Wladyslaw III died in EU3, for example, and you're well likely to see Poland and Hungary united for the next two centuries. Start the day before Henry VI loses his throne, and the House of Lancaster can coast on with 0 dynastic problems. I'm really glad they're addressing Burgundy, because it's a big deal for the early modern period's power balance.

 

[Vishaing]

I Agree, handing over French Land under the threat of war would be interesting.
Which is why it's a shame you don't get the choice you just lose the land automatically.

 

[Alerias]

Am i the only person here who is confused with all this?

What we are offered here is basically a deterministic (or semi deterministic at best) mechanic thats supposed to simulate an event from real life history, after the game start date.

My question is: why do we need this, at all?

Instead of an event, decision, or whatever, thats designed to handle this one case from history, wouldnt it be MUCH better we had the normal personal union mechanic upgraded so that it can handle this on its own.

It was my understanding that EU3 compared to EU1 and 2 was supposed to be the end of coded history being played out, i really dont understand whats the point of this whole thing.

Eu3 went way too far in that direction and the devs realized that. It was a pure sandbox with no History left.

Eu4 tries to mend the fences by striking a fair compromise between hardcoded historical parameters and err, nothing at all.

Thats what dynamic events and historical ideas and parameters are about. Putting more historically plausible outcomes into the soup.

It doesn't go far enough IMO, but its a great start.

 

[bleakie]

A few things to say:

1) On the purpose of the decision: I made a big mistake by omitting the clause concerning the AI requirement for the event to be triggered. So the original purpose of this idea is a bit pointless then. But I still think that the decision is a good way to increase the flavor for playing Burgundy, by reflecting her need for a royal crown to stabilize the realm.

2) On the details of the decision: the rationale behind the vassalization is that all HRE states west of the Rhine is de jure a part of Lotharingia. If a deal is struck concerning the crown of Lotharingia, those states should be de jure vassals of Lotharingia. In eu4, vassals come with a cost in diplomatic monarch points, so the decision would not be that overpowered as in eu3. But I admit that including 3 electors (Trier, Cologne, Mainz) as vassals is perhaps too big an advantage. Subtracting the electors from the reward and increasing the number of provinces required to 25 seems to be a good compromise.

3) On decision vs event chain: Decisions have the advantage of being more visible than event chains. The requirements for a decision are clearly stated, and one can actively pursue the decisions without a deep knowledge of the game. Meanwhile, the triggers and effects for event chains are hidden, so they often emerge as surprises. True, an EU veteran can master the events by accumulating experience and studying the event text files, but for new and more casual gamers, these events, especially when they come with nasty penalties, constitute a steep learning curve for the game. Event chains are better at giving the texture of time flow and modeling random elements that the player cannot control, but they are not inherently better in modeling everything, especially the things that the state is actively pursuing, in this case the dukes of Burgundy pursuing a royal crown. I concede that an event chain triggered by decision may have its merits in accounting for finer details, but the decision that I proposed still has good explanatory power to historical dynamics given its (low) level of complexity.

4) On MM: I truly admire the delicate thinking of MM modders after I read the manual, but one big problem is that the MM mod is too demanding for my computer, while vanilla can run smoothly. That's one reason why I do not like event chains that much -- they require more computer memory than decisions do.

5) On the politics of landed titles: I agree that much should be done in this aspect. At least factor in the strength of the family tree rather than just randomly popping heirs out of the blue. Even an abstract parameter would do. A strong family tree (high value of the family tree strength parameter) would mean more royal marriages and more potential heirs produced, at the expense of an increased chance for civil war. Burgundy can then be depicted as having an extremely weak family tree, resulting in high risk of succession troubles.

6) Ok, I never pretended that this single decision is able to single-handedly represent the situation faced by Burgundy in the 15th century. This decision is intended to complement a dynamic historical event (partition of Burgundy) mentioned in the DD, which is not really necessary because of an "AI only" conditional clause that I have carelessly skipped. The decision still has its own merit without its original purpose, but only within the context of giving Burgundy an alternative path, rather than setting a deterministic road for Burgundy.

 

[Ruwaard]

The point is that EU3 went and threw the baby out with the bathwater, creating a game that most of the time had neither historical realism (because games often went haywire from anything realistic) nor historical flavor (because all the flavor was thrown out to get rid of the deterministic).

Still a good game from a gaming perspective, and a better game than EU2, but EU2 remained more flavorful. EU4 is an attempt to capture the flavor without so much determinism.

Moreover, Burgundy was a very unique situation, due to being de jure a vassal of France and holding lands within both France and the Empire, while being de facto an independent state. The normal personal union mechanisms would completely fail at representing what happened to Burgundy (inability to represent France's de jure claim to the Burgundian French provinces: France would simply end up fighting a succession war to impose a personal union without any core/claims on the relevant provinces), and changing the PU mechanism so it fits would result in ridiculous results (Austria getting cores on Spain when it challenges French succession in the War of Spanish Succession).

You'd have to make special PU rules that apply only to Burgundy, only in specific situations, and at that point it's just plain easier - and more moddable for the fans who want to change it - to make it an event instead.

The factors that led to the partition of Burgundy are already all present at the beginning of the game, so It's okay in my mind to have an event specifically dealing with how those factors play out.

Of Course, I don't consider the eventual fate of Burgundy to be truly Burgundy Specific, but rather to grow out of the natural instability caused by being De-Jure the vassal of another Realm even when one has De-Facto Independence, combined with the fact that for all of their pretenses to the Divine Right of Kings, European Monarchs were more than willing to arbitrarily use supposed Succession crises to further their own aims. See also the War of Austrian Succession, which I would consider to be more than easily framed within the same general situation of the Partition of Burgundy; A Large and Powerful state with many Rivals nominally under the rule of a larger external polity finds itself with a Disputed Succession and its neighbors exploit that for their own ends.

A Semi-Generic event chain that can represent such a thing would make a dynamic and interesting situation where the existing balance of Power can be rapidly altered and can lead to unpredictable results that nevertheless grow from an identifiable situation and give you multiple paths to attempt to resolve or mitigate said situation.

Good thing I've already got that event chain programmed.

Actually Burgundy was both a de jure vassal of France, for the duchy of Burgundy and the counties of Flanders and Artois; and they were a de jure vassal of the HRE for the duchies Lothier (Lower Lotharingia/Lorraine), Brabant & Limburg and Luxembourg, the (free) county palatine of Burgundy, margraviate of Namur and counties Holland, Zeeland and Hainaut. 'Burgundy' was a collection of various Imperial and French fiefs. Furthermore I disagree that all the causes of the instability were already there in 1444. The main issue came down to the lack of a male heir. Some processes like the shift towards the wealthier Low Countries were already in place, if anything the only area, which could get a French core, when Burgundy lacks a male heir, is the duchy of Burgundy (proper) not other regions including Flanders and Artois. The reason for this is the difference in inheritance laws and how these lands were gained by the house of Valois-Burgundy, for instance Flanders and Artois were gained through marriage. The status of Burgundy proper itself was more disputed, but a strong France could get their way; an indication of this dispute is the fact that the heirs of Valois-Burgundy, the house of Habsburg never relinquished the title duke of Burgundy. In fact Burgundy could stay Burgundy even when they would lose Burgundy proper to France.

A kingdom of Lotharingia/Burgundy, maybe Friesland (Frisia) or Brabant decision/event, IMHO will be more fun in a tiered system.

 

[Sir Tornado]

The main purpose of adding this decision is to give the player a way to actively fight against the fate, rather than waiting passively till the artificial safe moment of 1 January 1500, which I think matches the spirit of EU4. The decision also adds historical flavor to the state of Burgundy. Please leave your ideas and comments about this if you have any.

PS: Thanks for the inspiration by the discussion in the Dutch and Burgundian DD thread.

Player Burgundy does not get partitioned between Emperor and King of France. It happens only for AI Burgundy (this was mentioned in the DD)