Creating a new 1492 scenario

[Mowers]

Originally posted by DarthMaur
I mean that i feel that latest games where Austria and/or Spain were thoroughly trashed by France are the reason that people think France is overpowered compared to them. Ingame. No relevance to any books whatsoever.

I am not interested in that. The point was proved years ago, it didnt take DoN and MGC to prove taht.

I am interested in what the historic relative strengths were in reality and the poltical and domestic factors that drove that.

I am, we are, just finally getting around to something that should have been done by the community a long time ago.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Mowers
I am not interested in that. The point was proved years ago, it didnt take DoN and MGC to prove taht.

I am interested in what the historic relative strengths were in reality and the poltical and domestic factors that drove that.

I am, we are, just finally getting around to something that should have been done by the community a long time ago.

Ok then. I don't claim its all right, just was afraid people will go overboard after recent games

 

[metroncho]

Originally posted by Mowers



My Objective, which I have stated numerous times, is to first examine France and Austria. If others wish to take up the other countries then they are welcome to do so.

Having said that, none of what I have read so far would indicate that the relative differences between the domestic power balances of aragon-castile and valencia-castille are comparable.

1) You cannot just change France and Austria forgetting the whole picture.

2) That´s more or less what i said, the kingdoms of Aragon or Valencia had so their own policies that their relations with the central governemnet of Aragón or Spain weren´t the same . They pursuit their own interests.


PS And Charles VIII´s France was able to conquer almost the whole Italian peninsula, being Italia then the most wealthy populated western land. So if that is not a proof of French power, what it is?
It took an alliance of Spanish and Italians to finnally drove them off. Even with the superior leadership of the Spanish army.

 

[Mowers]

Originally posted by DarthMaur
Hmm, i didn't follow it that much, but wasn't Spain twice as wealthy as France in XVIII century?

Wealthy, in absolute terms?

No.

 

[Mowers]

Originally posted by metroncho
1) You cannot just change France and Austria forgetting the whole picture.

The bigger picture is what this is all about. Stick to a position please....
Its the bit that is most flawed. An improvement here will have a bigger impact overall.
You want to do the rest, be my guest.

Originally posted by metroncho

2) That´s more or less what i said, the kingdoms of Aragon or Valencia had so their own policies that their relations with the central governemnet of Aragón or Spain weren´t the same . They pursuit their own interests.

And I am saying that it does not seem to be relative in comparison which is why I am not considering it atm.

Originally posted by metroncho

PS And Charles VIII´s France was able to conquer almost the whole Italian peninsula, being Italia then the most wealthy populated western land. So if that is not a proof of French power, what it is?
It took an alliance of Spanish and Italians to finnally drove them off. Even with the superior leadership of the Spanish army.

Exactly, but this is hardly rocket science, this is elementary stuff mate. But can you do more than repeat the basics.
Do you read my posts?
Or do you get your inspiration from reading my old posts?

Seriously though....
the debate is more complex than that.

 

[metroncho]

Originally posted by Mowers
The bigger picture is what this is all about. Stick to a position please....
Its the bit that is most flawed. An improvement here will have a bigger impact overall.
You want to do the rest, be my guest.

The bigger pic was that Europe was still very decentralized, and a historical representation of Europa has to accept it or forget it at all. France getting Bourbonnais is getting less than Spain getting Catalunya or Austria getting Hungary. So if you think france has to be weakened what i partially agree the solution must be other.
BTW ingame terms the vassalships in Bourbonnais and Auvergne will give France more military power.

I´d love to help you in the rest if we are going to make an historical scenario, not political fiction .

 

[metroncho]

Originally posted by Mowers


Exactly, but this is hardly rocket science, this is elementary stuff mate. But can you do more than repeat the basics.
Do you read my posts?
Or do you get your inspiration from reading my old posts?

Seriously though....
the debate is more complex than that.

Your posts are inspiration for us all


The debate is and always have been the same: to keep or not to keep the Balance of Power at all costs. And again, i could partially agree with you. But the ultimate problem lies in the players, not in the scenario.

 

[Twoflower]

Originally posted by metroncho

2) That´s more or less what i said, the kingdoms of Aragon or Valencia had so their own policies that their relations with the central governemnet of Aragón or Spain weren´t the same . They pursuit their own interests.

There is one huge difference though: Bourbonnais (and other French fiefs) were legitimately ruled by autonomous dynasties that pursued their own policy, even against the French King (like Charles de Bourbon who became a Hapsburg ally or the Huguenot nobles), while Valencia was in personal union with Aragon (and later Spain), thus controlled by completely the same person with the same politic, and only had separate laws.

PS And Charles VIII´s France was able to conquer almost the whole Italian peninsula, being Italia then the most wealthy populated western land. So if that is not a proof of French power, what it is?
It took an alliance of Spanish and Italians to finnally drove them off. Even with the superior leadership of the Spanish army.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Charles have strong allies himself, in the beginning even Fernando of Aragon?

 

[RedPhoenix]

Originally posted by metroncho
Your posts are inspiration for us all


The debate is and always have been the same: to keep or not to keep the Balance of Power at all costs. And again, i partially agree with you to some extent. But the ultimate problem lies in the players, not in the scenario.

It's not about balance of power laex, France is stronger compared to its neighbours than it was in reality, Ottomans and Poland are weaker, these are just examples but they effect more things since they are the main players. There are ofcourse innumrable things that are not in the right proportion, but changing the major factors will make it feel atleast a bit more realistic.

 

[Mowers]

Originally posted by metroncho
Your posts are inspiration for us all

yeah, yeah, yeah

Originally posted by metroncho

The debate is and always have been the same: to keep or not to keep the Balance of Power at all costs. And again, i partially agree with you to some extent. But the ultimate problem lies in the players, not in the scenario.

For me the objective is to create a realistic model. Not to create a 'game'.

The ultimate problem, in this particular problem, does not lie with the players. The scenario is clearly, demonstratably and repeatedly proven in a multitude of tests to be an incorrect simulation.

Originally posted by metroncho

The bigger pic was that Europe was still very decentralized, and a historical representation of Europa has to accept it or forget it at all.

I dont think understand the point unless u are pointing out the obvious, If you are pointing out that Europe is decentralised, then we already know this. That is a core part of the exercise.

Originally posted by metroncho

France getting Bourbonnais is getting less than Spain getting Catalunya or Austria getting Hungary. So if you think france has to be weakened what i partially agree the solution must be other.

Again, sorry, I dont follow you.

Originally posted by metroncho

BTW ingame terms the vassalships in Bourbonnais and Auvergne will give France more military power.

So you are saying that vassaling parts of france makes it stronger? Surely not....

Originally posted by metroncho

I´d love to help you in the rest if we are going to make an historical scenario, not political fiction .

Welcome on board.

 

[metroncho]

Originally posted by Twoflower
There is one huge difference though: Bourbonnais (and other French fiefs) were legitimately ruled by autonomous dynasties that pursued their own policy, even against the French King (like Charles de Bourbon who became a Hapsburg ally or the Huguenot nobles), while Valencia was in personal union with Aragon (and later Spain), thus controlled by completely the same person with the same politic, and only had separate laws.

The kingdoms of the Crown of Aragon were still so autonomous as to revolt agianst the king of Spain and allege obedience to France (Catalunya 1640) or elect a king of Spain of their own (1700). Until the Decretos de Nueva planta the central government didn´t completely control those territories.

Originally posted by Twoflower

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Charles have strong allies himself, in the beginning even Fernando of Aragon?

AFAIK Fernando first stayed neutral, later joined France in the repart of Naples and later attack her.
I think many Italian states submitted to Charles in the beginning of the conquest.

 

[Smirfy]

Well in my reading so far France was the most powerful country at the time mainly because it used tax collectors (funny that) and was slightly more centralised than the others. this enabled Charles VIII to field an artillery corps for which the italian cities states had no real defence forcing them to orginise more centrlalised bureaucracy and promote tax collectors (hilairious) to manage defence then realising that mercenaries were unreliable and militia could not compete with larger armies they invested in large artillery proof forts "trace italienne" and formed "standing armies"

 

[Mowers]

Originally posted by Smirfy
Well in my reading so far France was the most powerful country at the time mainly because it used tax collectors (funny that) and was slightly more centralised than the others. this enabled Charles VIII to field an artillery corps for which the italian cities states had no real defence forcing them to orginise more centrlalised bureaucracy and promote tax collectors (hilairious) to manage defence then realising that mercenaries were unreliable and militia could not compete with larger armies they invested in large artillery proof forts "trace italienne" and formed "standing armies"

The Taille (centralised tax) in France gave the French monarchy a big advantage over his enemies. But the rest of the French state was not centralised to the same extent, indeed, nowhere near as centralised.

The Italians were defeated and reduced to foreign territory for other powers because the old stability pact and mutual defense treaties fell apart and failing to act as one they were picked off peace meal by the recently 'united' france and 'united' spain/hapsbergs that now had the resources and focus to take them out.

 

[metroncho]

Originally posted by Mowers




I dont think understand the point unless u are pointing out the obvious, If you are pointing out that Europe is decentralised, then we already know this. That is a core part of the exercise.

Again, sorry, I dont follow you.

What i´m saying is that is strange not to follow the same pattern in similar situations as the one you describes. IMHO a model must be objetive as far as possible and treat similar cases similary. I don´t know if i´m explaining properly what i´m trying to say.
And i really think players are more responsible of the usual outcome that the scenario or the engine.

Originally posted by Mowers

So you are saying that vassaling parts of france makes it stronger? Surely not....

Yes, without manitenance caps, AI countries can amass huge armies. If you play the new HYW you´ll know what i´m saying. At least in a defensive war it could make France stronger.

Originally posted by Mowers



Welcome on board.

Thanks Captain
I´ll try to make a list of suggestions

 

[Smirfy]

Originally posted by Mowers
The Taille (centralised tax) in France gave the French monarchy a big advantage over his enemies. But the rest of the French state was not centralised to the same extent, indeed, nowhere near as centralised.

The Italians were defeated and reduced to foreign territory for other powers because the old stability pact and mutual defense treaties fell apart and failing to act as one they were picked off peace meal by the recently 'united' france and 'united' spain/hapsbergs that now had the resources and focus to take them out.

I meant more centralised than the other nations around except perhaps England


And a united artillery corps

 

[Mowers]

Originally posted by metroncho
What i´m saying is that is strange not to follow the same pattern in similar situations as the one you describes. IMHO a model must be objetive as far as possible and treat similar cases similary. I don´t know if i´m explaining properly what i´m trying to say.

I understand now.

I agree that similiarly weighted problems must be treated equally to create an effective model. However, in this situation the problems are clearly, definable proven not to equal and the France-Austria issue has a weighting beyond all other western European problems.

Originally posted by metroncho

Yes, without manitenance caps, AI countries can amass huge armies. If you play the new HYW you´ll know what i´m saying.

I do undstand but I also know that AI nations do funny things, can be bought off relatively easily and are great at attritional bundle attacks on friendly forces. I think most people would say that they would rather just have the cash and fore go the AI's assistance in all but the most extreme of cases.

However, the AI is certainly improving. And if this is true for the french AI then its true for the Italian AI- which is great news for us all.

 

[JohnMK]

This is legal syntax and I just tested it, it works!

alliance = {
id = { type = 9424 id = 1 }
type = vassalization
name = "Union of Kalmar"
startdate = { year = 1821 month = january day = 0 }
expirydate = { year = 1821 month = january day = 1 }
participant = { DAN SWE }
}

You can make a vassal non-annexable in his manner. Or if you don't want it annexable till 1550 . . . you get the idea.

 

[Mowers]

Originally posted by Smirfy
I meant more centralised than the other nations around except perhaps England

And a united artillery corps

I dont think they were more centralised tahn other nations at all. I think france is surrounded by a series of small nations that are much more centralised. Technically these smaller states must have been more centralised, due to their size and history of unity and identity as a seperate nation. I think that France had just recently managed to succesfully 'unite' a series of kingdoms into 'one'. This success coincided with 2 decades of peace, stability and economic growth that was captalised by some centralisations. It doesnt mean that under the surface there was a nation. It was still very much a collection of regions that was ruled by a very strong power binding them together.

I would be surprised if the French were more centralised than Henry VII's efforts. From what I have seen they were definitely not more centralised.

A united artillery corps is difficult to model. Perhaps a starting artillery unit addition?

 

[metroncho]

Originally posted by JohnMK
This is legal syntax and I just tested it, it works!

alliance = {
id = { type = 9424 id = 1 }
type = vassalization
name = "Union of Kalmar"
startdate = { year = 1821 month = january day = 0 }
expirydate = { year = 1821 month = january day = 1 }
participant = { DAN SWE }
}

You can make a vassal non-annexable in his manner. Or if you don't want it annexable till 1550 . . . you get the idea.

Could you explain a bit how it works ?, i´m not very informed about editing issues

 

[Mowers]

John,

this could have alot of fun implementations....