Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

EEP West Europe

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
France Events

Sorry by I'm afraind myenglish is not perfect.
This some events to complete french history

French Event
Event Name : Jean sans Peur Murder
Date : September 10th, 1419
Description : Jean sans Peur ( John Fearless ???, chief of Burgundian ), Duke of Burgundy, was in war with the Dauphin Charles ( futur king of France Charles VII, chief of the Armagnacs ) in order to be regent of the Kingdom of France during the Charles VI insanity. First ally of the King of England , the Duke Jean remember that he is a french prince from the Valois familly ( the same as Charles VI ) and try to become reconciled with the Armagnac faction. A first meeting was organized at Ponceau without results, a second one is planned on September 19th, 1419 on the bridge of Montereau. But the Armagnacs have not forgotten the murder of Louis d’Orléans, twelve years ago and they claim for revenge.
Triggers : France at war with England and Burgundy.
Suggested Effects :
A ) Murder Jean sans Peur : Relation with Burgundy : -100
Aristocraty : +1
B ) Become reconcilied with Burgondy :
White peace between France and Burgundy
Burgondy break military alliance with England
Aristocraty –1
Centalisation +1
Relation with Burgondy : +50
Provence, Bourbonnais, Auvergne, Orléanais break vassalage
Relation with Provence, Bourbonnais, Auvergne, Orléanais : -50
Revolts in Paris + 2 provinces
Revolts risk : +5

Burgundy events:
Event Name : Treaty of Troyes
Date : May 21th, 1420
Description : After the death of Duke Jean sans Peur, murdered by Armagnacs, the new duke of Burgundy, Phillipe le Bon, consolidate the alliance with england. He force Isabeau de Bavière, Queen of France, to marry Claude de France ( her daughter ) to the English king Henry V and to declare him son of Charles VI, heir to the throne of France. After the death of Henry V and Charles VI, Henry VI will be king of England and France.
Triggers : Jean sans Peur was murdered.
France at war with Burgundy and England
Ile de France occupied by England.
Suggested Effects :
A ) Sign the treaty of Troyes :
At the death of Charles VI ( king of France ) : October 22th, 1422
England and Burgondy annex every territory they occupied in France without make peace with France
France annex Bourbonnais ( Berri was the “apanage” of Charles VII )
French capital move from paris ( Ile de France ) to Bourges ( Berri )
Charles VII become king of France
B ) Don’t sign the Treaty of Troyes
Stability –1
Relation with England : -50



French Event :
Event Name : Pragmatique Sanction
Date : 1438
Triggers : None
Description : In order to limited the power of the Pope in France, Charles VII sign the “Pragmatique Sanction” which create a Gallican Church : Bishops and Abbots are elected by a Council and not by the Pope.
Suggested Effects : Relation with Pope : -25


French Event :
Event Name : L’affaire des Placards
Date : October 18th, 1534
Triggers : France is still catholic
Description : During the night of 17th, Protestants sticked pamphlets against catholic mass on the wall of Paris, Orléans, Amboise, several towns in France and until on the door of the King’s bedroom in Blois.
Suggested Effects :
A ) Punish the heretics
Relations with Protestant States : -25
Relation with Catholic States : +10
Break Alliance with Protestant States
Narrowmindedness : +1
Revolt Risk : +3

B ) Don’t punish them
Relations with Protestant States : +25
Stability : -2


French Event :
Event Name : Le Concordat de Bologne
Date : August 18th, 1516
Triggers : France still catholic
Description : The King François 1st and the Pope sign the “Concordat de Bologne” which cancelled the “ Pragmatique Sanction”. The King can name the Bishop and Abbots and recognize the superiority of the Pope on the council of the Gallican Church, he also receive 1% of the benefits made by the Church in France.
Suggested Effects :
Relation with the pope : +15
Tax value : +1
 
Originally posted by Johnny Canuck

Event Name: Catholic Emancipation
Country: England
Description: The cause of Catholic emancipation was long championed by Charles James Fox and his Whig allies. Even though George III was strongly against Catholic emancipation, it is possible that Fox, Prime Minister with a large public following, could force the King to yield.
Trigger(s): 1 January 1800
Fox is Prime Minister (see note below)
England is Not at War with France
Effect(s)
A: Pass Catholic Emancipation
Culture in the Four Irish Provinces Outside Ulster Changed to Anglosaxon
-3 Revolt Risk in All Five Irish Provinces
+1 Tax Value in Meath
-2 Stability
+1 Innovativeness
-1 Centralization
-1 Aristocracy

B: Now is Not the Time
+1 Stability
+2 Aristocracy
+1 Centralization
-1 Innovativeness
Click to expand...

I'd think that there ought to be increased revolt risk across England (and maybe Wales and Scotland) if the Catholic emancipation happens. It was a contentious issues, as the example og the Gordon riots shows. So I'd propose +3 revolt risk. Maybe this should be limited to London, but I think there was more of a downside to England than the event proposed here shows.

edit: I think this post makes it sound like I don't like the event. I do like it, it adds flavour.
 
Last edited:
So is this the thread to post Belgian stuff in?
Have found one person so far that CAN be used as leader

historicalleader = {
category = general
id = { type = ? id = ? }
name = "Charles Rogier"
startdate = {
year=1830
}
deathdate = {
year=1885
month=january
day=1
}
rank = 3
movement = 3
fire = 4
shock = 3
siege = 0
location = 378
}
 
And some monarchs

----------------------

historicalmonarch = {
id = { type = 6 id = ? }
name = "Leopold I von Sachsen-Coburg Gotha"
startdate = { year = 1831 }
enddate = { year = 1865 }
DIP = 4
ADM = 6
MIL = 3
dormant = no
}



historicalmonarch = {
id = { type = 6 id = ? }
name = "Leopold II von Sachsen-Coburg Gotha"
startdate = { year = 1865 }
enddate = { year = 1909 }
DIP = 4
ADM = 4
MIL = 1
dormant = no
remark = "Brought Congo under Belgian reign."
}


historicalmonarch = {
id = { type = 6 id = ? }
name = "Albert I von Sachsen-Coburg Gotha"
startdate = { year = 1909 }
enddate = { year = 1934 }
DIP = 5
ADM = 4
MIL = 4
dormant = no
remark = "Died in 1934 while climbing in Marche-en-Famenne"
}


If you want, you can drop the 'von Sachsen-Coburg Gotha'... Just Leopold I, II & Albert I will do as well
 
Originally posted by Isaac Brock


I'd think that there ought to be increased revolt risk across England (and maybe Wales and Scotland) if the Catholic emancipation happens. It was a contentious issues, as the example og the Gordon riots shows. So I'd propose +3 revolt risk. Maybe this should be limited to London, but I think there was more of a downside to England than the event proposed here shows.

edit: I think this post makes it sound like I don't like the event. I do like it, it adds flavour.
Click to expand...

You have a good point, as even if Fox had been able to convince the King, there would have been opposition to the move. My general premise is that if Fox becomes PM in 1790, an era of reform would have begun. Historically, there was significent momentum in the late 1700s towards political reform. However, the French Revolution snuffed out any reforming impulse as it was believed that the government needed to clamp down on society to ensure there wasn't a revolution in England like that in France. The reforming impulse did not gain momentum again until the late 1820s, when Catholic Emancipation & the First Reform Act were passed. My view is that, with Fox as PM, the reforming era of the late 1820s/early 1830s would have occurred in the late 1790s/early 1800s. If England hadn't been consumed by the war with Revolutionary France, and had a leader more committed to reform in principle, I think this is certainly possible. When Catholic Emancipation was passed in 1829, there was little real chance of a rebellion against the maneouver. None of the gentry were willing to lead a popular protest, most were unwilling to rebel against the lawful King over the issue, and the leading 'ultras' in political circles were isolated by Wellington, Peel, & co. I would argue that a similar situation would have ensued in 1800 if Fox had attempted such a maneouver in an atmosphere receptive to reform. Perhaps a +1 National Revolt Risk for 36 months might help balance the event? I would hesitate to make it more serious than that. The stability penalty for choosing Catholic Emancipation vs. the stability bonus for opposing Catholic Emancipation is a serious drawback to supporting Catholic Emancipation, especially when one considers how hard it would be for Britain in 1800 to increase stability, with a large empire & low serfdom plus high innovativeness raising stability costs.
 
Originally posted by Havard



oh, btw - just saw your name in the English event file ;)
Click to expand...

My name in the English event file!?! Wow, that is just way too cool! :D
 
Last edited:
Johnny Cannuck:

Excellent solid events. I have a more complicated and less concrete suggestion for the act of union, for what it's worth.

The game should model increasing religious and cultural divides in Scotland, whether it is run by England or independent. Also an earlier change in the EU cultures in Scotland should encourage a more historical game, since Scotland will become more attractive to take over before 1707. I think James I/VI had a go, and there was the commonwealth.
So an event for Scotland for some time in the 17th century, depending on how the rest of the events in EU work. Maybe in 1603 or 1689. It may need to be triggered by swaps between Stuarts and imports; does this happen for Scotland as well as England, by the way?

[argh, is the union of the crowns vassalization or annexation, in EU terms?]

Event Name: The North Britons
Country: Scotland
Description: Over time, the alliance between the Highland Gaels and the lowland Anglo-Saxon of people disappeared, and was replaced with fear and mistrust as the lowlanders drew closer to the wealth and protestant power of England.
Trigger(s):
Scotland owns Lothian, England Exists
England and Scotland both protestant/reformed
Effect(s)
A: Screw the declaration of Arbroath, the wife wants a big house in London.
Culture in Lothian Changed to Anglosaxon
Culture in Strathclyde Changed to Anglosaxon
Culture in Ulster Changed to Anglosaxon
+50 relations with England
Scotland gains anglosaxon culture (to encourage a human player. Although maybe they should have it already)
B: Ye maun be crazy man! Scots wha hae wi Wallace bled will never gie up their freedom!
Nothing

There should be a similar event for England, with only option A.
Then have

Event Name: Scottish Act of Union (NOTE: This replaces Event 3037: "The Act of Union")
Country: England
Description: In the midst of the Spanish Succession War (1700-1713), the Parliament voted the Act of Union in 1707. When confirmed by the Scottish vote, it established the Union of Scotland and England (and its Irish possessions) under the same monarch into one realm under the title of Great Britain. A new flag, the Union Jack was adopted as a symbol of the Union. (NOTE: This is a direct quote from EVENTHIST3037)
Trigger(s): 1 January 1707 to 1 January 1820
England owns Lothian and Strathclyde
Effect(s)
A: We Are Great Britain
Change Flag to the Union Jack
Gain all Scotlands CB shields
+1 Centralization
+1 Stability

These are just thoughts; I'm not hard working enough to give alternative, researched events to match yours.

For the catholic emancipation: is it really a good idea to have that as an event, and not just let those sorts of choices be modelled by the religion sliders?
Don't forget to change the highlands to reformed with the clearances (if you change them to stay catholic after the reformation).
Another thing- have some island provinces been added to Scotland now?
 
Originally posted by Pishtaco
Johnny Cannuck:
. . . The game should model increasing religious and cultural divides in Scotland, whether it is run by England or independent. Also an earlier change in the EU cultures in Scotland should encourage a more historical game, since Scotland will become more attractive to take over before 1707. I think James I/VI had a go, and there was the commonwealth.
So an event for Scotland for some time in the 17th century, depending on how the rest of the events in EU work. Maybe in 1603 or 1689. It may need to be triggered by swaps between Stuarts and imports; does this happen for Scotland as well as England, by the way?

[argh, is the union of the crowns vassalization or annexation, in EU terms?]

Event Name: The North Britons
Country: Scotland
Description: Over time, the alliance between the Highland Gaels and the lowland Anglo-Saxon of people disappeared, and was replaced with fear and mistrust as the lowlanders drew closer to the wealth and protestant power of England.
Trigger(s):
Scotland owns Lothian, England Exists
England and Scotland both protestant/reformed
Effect(s)
A: Screw the declaration of Arbroath, the wife wants a big house in London.
Culture in Lothian Changed to Anglosaxon
Culture in Strathclyde Changed to Anglosaxon
Culture in Ulster Changed to Anglosaxon
+50 relations with England
Scotland gains anglosaxon culture (to encourage a human player. Although maybe they should have it already)
B: Ye maun be crazy man! Scots wha hae wi Wallace bled will never gie up their freedom!
Nothing

There should be a similar event for England, with only option A . . .

. . . For the catholic emancipation: is it really a good idea to have that as an event, and not just let those sorts of choices be modelled by the religion sliders? Don't forget to change the highlands to reformed with the clearances (if you change them to stay catholic after the reformation). Another thing- have some island provinces been added to Scotland now?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the insightful comments, Pishtaco. In terms of the culture for the Lowland Scots, that is a real tough one. Ideally, we would be able to create a new "lowland scottish" culture & a "highland scottish" culture, to best simulate it. As it is, there have been a variety of arguments over when Lothian & Strathclyde become "anglosaxon," from before 1419 to the Scottish Act of Union. My preference is to have the culture change occur as a result of the Act of Union. However, your suggestion about the national provinces got me thinking. Right now, there is no event whatsoever that deals with the union of the crowns in 1603. Perhaps there could be an event created for 1603 (the accession of James I is unavoidable for the English, and I think rightfully so) that gives the English CBs on Lothian and Strathclyde, while keeping the culture the same. This would simulate that while the Lowland Scots were still Scottish, they would not put up a fuss if they were conquered by the English (i.e. no nationalism). The culture would still change for those two provinces via the Scottish Act of Union event. What do you think?

For Catholic emancipation, I put it in as a way for the English to transform the culture in Ireland from "gaelic" to "anglosaxon." I view Catholic Emancipation not just as a move towards removing restrictions on Catholics, but also as an event that reasonably could have gained the loyalty of the Catholic Irish (hence the culture change, as that removes the cultural revolt risk). The Fitzwilliam Episode of 1795 showed that the possibility of Catholic Emancipation was warmly welcomed by the Catholic Irish, as well as most Protestant Irish. By 1829, the granting of it did not have the same effect, as other grievances took hold in the collective memory of the Irish (the 1798 Rebellion, the 1801 Act of Union, the execution of Robert Emmet in 1803, etc.). Finally, I'm a student of modern British history and Anglo-Irish relations, and I can't help but feel in my gut that the 1790s provided the best chance to reconcile the Irish to British rule, via granting Catholic Emancipation, and thereby avoid the bloodshed and despair in Ireland in the 19th & 20th centuries.

Finally, good point about changing the religion in The Highlands & The Grampians back to Reformed after the Clearances. Also, about island provinces being added to Scotland, are you thinking of the Orkneys, the Shetlands, etc.? If so, no, there are not in the game, as of 1.02.
 
Okay, now those events are related also to Byzantine, not only to Western European powers - Anjou succession, French Events before Religious Wars:
Event #1 - Anjou Succession in France - decreases your relations with 5 random nations, and you will receive several smaller events, adn after the last of those small events, there will be next Anjou Succession Major Event. You also can decide not to proclaim your succession claim, thus you will only loose 50 VPs.
Sub-Event #1 - Bourbon Succession - you can inheir Bourbon and go to war with England and all of your vassals that are still independent, or just loose 25 VPs.
Sub-Event #2 - Orleanais Succession - you inheir Orleans and go tow war with England, and remainder of your vasssals or loose 25 VPs.
Sub-Event #3 - Provance Succession - the same event like the one in game.
Sub-Event #4 - Brittany Succession - the same as #1 and #2 Sub-Events, only with Brittany.
To be continued tommorow...
 
Catholic Emancipation

I think I agree on the approach here. Catholic emancipation would have caused unrest, and rioting and so on, but probably not to the extent that it would have toppled the regime or chnaged the constitution. By which I mean that the AI ought to be able to handle whatever it is that's thrown at it, but it ought to cause trouble. So I'd like revolt risk (maybe +3 for one year?) but not enough to really mess up Britain.
 
British Isles

I don't have the game, so I oughtn't really to comment about details of implementation. Nevertheless, changing the culture in Ireland does seem a bit extreme; would it make more sense to add gaelic to England?

I am still uneasy about doing with an event something that Paradox already model in the game engine, and you will have to be sly with the phrasing (or the triggering) to get around the possibility that England has already converted the Irish provinces to Protestantism, or is Catholic itself. I also wonder whether the ahistorical alternative in your event isn't too attractive. Perhaps if it were triggered only when there was no French revolution, or a less disruptive French revolution? (I gather there are several versions)

Here is a different suggestion:

Name: Irish Act of Union
Description: During the 18th century enlightenment, enthusiasm grew in Britain for political reform and religious liberty. But the aftermath of the French revolution brought a reaction against this. It was feared that the Irish might follow the French example, so in 1800 Britain cemented its hold on Ireland, dissolving the independent parliament and admitting Irish representatives into Westminster.
The representatives were all Protestants; Catholic emancipation had been promised, but was not delivered.
A: Let us become the United Kingdom
England gets gaelic culture
+1 Stability
+1 Centralization
-1 Innovativeness
+3 revolt risk in Ireland (permanent?)
B: Let us take the Irish as partners in liberty and become the United Kingdom
England gets gaelic culture
-2 stability
+1 Innovativeness
-1 Centralization
+3 revolt risk in various British cities (temporary)

I like this because the gain in culture marks the fact that the union did take place and Ireland was absorbed. It's effect is no more drastic than Paradox's Scottish act of union. Obviously it could be controversial though. Otherwise, the alternatives are more balanced, and provide a historical background on top of which the player can move his religion sliders.

Is it the case that England currently does not have CB shields on the rest of the British Isles, and does not gain them? I think it ought to. The acts of union are modelled as changes to England, but in reality were the creation of new countries; Great Britain should have CB shields on all of Great Britain, and ditto the UK.

I did a bit of reading on the Highland Clearances, and it looks as though large-scale ethnic cleansing in favour of sheep did not begin until the early 1800s. Maybe it would be more historical to leave the Highlands gaelic until then (and maybe leave the remotest part of Scotland gaelic after that, to leave a bit of celtic colour in the Hebrides) so that England is wary and likely to garrison them.
Instead, there could be an event to turn the Highlands reformed for a sum of money, since England cannot send reformed missionaries; and a breaking the clans/banning highland dress event for historical flavour, that drops populations and, to represent elite highland regiments, adds 1 to Englands quality slider.
 
Pishtaco - For the British Isles events vis-a-vis Ireland, here is the way I envision it. First, there are a couple of events in the 1500s & 1600s that raise the province_revoltrisk in the Irish provinces (the Plantations, the Cromwellian Massacres, etc.). By the late 1700s, Ulster will likely be Reformed & anglosaxon (the first, thanks to the new Ulster Plantation event, the latter, due to my preposed Scottish Act of Union event). The rest of Ireland is still Catholic & gaelic, with about +4 province_revoltrisk (which makes rebellions probable if stability drops below approx. +2 or +1). I'm also proposing to create a choice event for England once the French Revolution begins. The English can either choose Pitt or Charles James Fox as Prime Minister. Pitt would be chosen if the player wants to fight France, Fox would be chosen if the goal is to avoid war & focus on domestic reform. If you choose Pitt, you get in 1801 the historical Irish Act of Union event. If you choose Fox, you get the ahistorical Catholic Emancipation event. The first reduces the province_revoltrisk in Ireland (on the premise that the removal of the Irish Parliament did not become a grievance until the 1830s), but does not change the culture (the Irish still resented their second-class status in the UK). The Catholic Emancipation event gives the Irish the best of both worlds: they get to keep their Irish Parliament, & the restrictions on Catholics are lifted. Hence, the Irish are much more likely to be reconciled to Irish rule. To simulate this, the culture in Ireland is changed to anglosaxon, in addition to the reduction of the province_revoltrisk.

The historical option (i.e. Irish Act of Union) should not change the culture, as the Irish resented that they were not granted Catholic Emancipation in exchange for the removal of their Parliament. I don't think that the player should be given the choice between the Act of Union or Catholic Emancipation in a single event, as who wouldn't choose to change the culture to anglosaxon in addition to the reduction in the province_revoltrisk? Thus, by making each event conditional on the choice of Pitt or Fox, it places them in the context of the time (i.e. fighting the French under Pitt, or domestic reform under Fox). For example, while choosing Fox gets the player the option for Catholic Emancipation, other Fox events make it awfully hard to fight a prolonged war against France. I'm going to soon post my proposals for Pitt - Fox events.

In terms of CB, the English have shields on English provinces + Wales, & no Scottish or Irish provinces. Also, at no time during the game do the English gain any shields on Scottish or Irish provinces. However, the English do have a permanent CB on Scotland that lasts for the entire game.

Also, just so you know, there is no Hebrides province in the game. The British Isles provinces are exactly as they were in EU1. Also, there is no event in the game currently that simulates the Irish Act of Union or anything like that. Indeed, the English gain gaelic as a state culture via the Scottish Act of Union, which effectively means that the culture in Ireland is transformed to anglosaxon, which doesn't make any sense whatsoever!

For the Clearances, I would leave the provinces Catholic after the event, though the culture would change. Since it is likely that the player would have lower tolerance for Catholicism than Reformed, this would keep a bit of extra revolt risk, while simulating that the back of the clans had been broken. My (admittedly limited) understanding of the Highland Clearances is that it started after Culloden with the political goal of breaking the power of the Highland Clans, and later the political goal was augmented by the economic goal of clearing the land for profitable sheep grazing.
 
rough proposal about Turkish occupation of Roma

#########################################################################
# Crusade
#########################################################################
event = {

id = 15001
trigger = {control = { province = 399 data = TUR }
religion = catholic
atwar = no
}
random = no
name = "?"
desc = "?"
style = 1
date = { year = 1419 }
deathdate = { day = 2 month = may year = 1820 }
action_a = {
name = "Crusade"
command = { type = war which = TUR }
}

Any catholic nation at peace will declare war against Turkey.
 
Suggested revised Inheritance of Burgundy

I have rewritten for my own sake the events leading to it. The main reason was that, at times, Burgundy would be doing quite well in a game while Austria and France were lame and I thought it unlikely that the richest heiress of the time would consent to not only marrying a weakish lord but also to bring Burgundy as a dowry. Could she not have the upper hand and be Queen of Austria?

Anyhow, I have written it up as 4 events: Event 1 sees Austria sometime in 1477 come to Anne as a suitor, provided Austria is not at war with Burgundy and provided Austria has not lost any of its original Provinces (Thus ensuring Austria has not become a minor). Then Anne can either say yes (trigger Austria inherits Burgundy) or no (pisses off Austria).

If Anne said no, in 1478 Charles de Valois, king of France comes courting, provided France is not at war with Burgundy and provided France has kept its original Provinces and gained one of the Continental English Provinces (again, providing France is a respectable kingdom). Anne can say yes (trigger France inherits Burgundy) or no (insults France).

Next, if Anne is still single in 1479 (i.e. she rejected Maximilian and Charles or Austria and France are lame), she marries the Count of Bar (a minor house close to Burgundy and Lorraine).

Finally, by 1486 or so, the alternate past can fork depending on events that are semi-random, inasmuch as the Burgundy AI or player is concerned. If neither Granada, Salzburg or Teke exists, Anne and the Count of Bar's fictional son becomes monarch as Philip IV (already in Paradox' monarch.bur file). Otherwise, Anne dies childless and only Bourgogne, Franche-Comté, Brabant and Luxembourg (and Lorraine, if owned) remain loyal to the poor Count of Bar. Possible minors (KLE/ KOL/ PFA/MAI/HES/BAD/FLA/GEL/FRI and two of my own, Artois and Champagne are spawned as vassal-counties as their acknowledgement of the House of Bar's right to rule is weaker (and ultimately these minors might break and float away, gobbled up by hungry powerful neighbours).

Not historical but not far-fetched and, to me at least, more logical chain of events, taking into account the relative strenght of Anne's suitors.
 
Originally posted by laurent Favre
Any catholic nation at peace will declare war against Turkey.
Click to expand...
Don't forget to also have counte-reformation Catholic countries also go to war.

OR = { religion = catholic
religion = counterreform }
 
Originally posted by pierreluc
Suggested revised Inheritance of Burgundy

I have rewritten for my own sake the events leading to it. The main reason was that, at times, Burgundy would be doing quite well in a game while Austria and France were lame and I thought it unlikely that the richest heiress of the time would consent to not only marrying a weakish lord but also to bring Burgundy as a dowry. Could she not have the upper hand and be Queen of Austria?

Anyhow, I have written it up as 4 events: Event 1 sees Austria sometime in 1477 come to Anne as a suitor, provided Austria is not at war with Burgundy and provided Austria has not lost any of its original Provinces (Thus ensuring Austria has not become a minor). Then Anne can either say yes (trigger Austria inherits Burgundy) or no (pisses off Austria).

If Anne said no, in 1478 Charles de Valois, king of France comes courting, provided France is not at war with Burgundy and provided France has kept its original Provinces and gained one of the Continental English Provinces (again, providing France is a respectable kingdom). Anne can say yes (trigger France inherits Burgundy) or no (insults France).

Next, if Anne is still single in 1479 (i.e. she rejected Maximilian and Charles or Austria and France are lame), she marries the Count of Bar (a minor house close to Burgundy and Lorraine).

Finally, by 1486 or so, the alternate past can fork depending on events that are semi-random, inasmuch as the Burgundy AI or player is concerned. If neither Granada, Salzburg or Teke exists, Anne and the Count of Bar's fictional son becomes monarch as Philip IV (already in Paradox' monarch.bur file). Otherwise, Anne dies childless and only Bourgogne, Franche-Comté, Brabant and Luxembourg (and Lorraine, if owned) remain loyal to the poor Count of Bar. Possible minors (KLE/ KOL/ PFA/MAI/HES/BAD/FLA/GEL/FRI and two of my own, Artois and Champagne are spawned as vassal-counties as their acknowledgement of the House of Bar's right to rule is weaker (and ultimately these minors might break and float away, gobbled up by hungry powerful neighbours).

Not historical but not far-fetched and, to me at least, more logical chain of events, taking into account the relative strenght of Anne's suitors.
Click to expand...

Before her marrying Max, George Duke of Clarence had been Anne's primary suitor. I would add to the beginning this sequence an event allowing her to marry him if Edward IV is king of England. This would reduce relations with England and give Burgundy a CB vs England, while placing the incompetent George on the Burgundian throne. George was ambitious for the throne of England and had shown himself to be easily manipulable.

It is apparently possible to make the choice between two events truly random in the following manner:

event 1
trigger not event 2
start date 1/1/1500
end date 1/1/1501
offset 100
{
event effects
}

event 2
trigger not event 1
start date 1/1/1500
end date 1/1/1501
offset 100
{
event effects
}

Whichever event's offset runs out quicker will trigger and block the other from occuring. By making the two offsets different it should be possible to alter the probabilities.
 
##BELGIAN LEADERS##
###Courtesy of VultureGFF###

historicalleader = {
category = general
id = { type = ? id = ? }
name = "Charles Rogier"
startdate = {
year=1830
}
deathdate = {
year=1885
month=january
day=1
}
rank = 3
movement = 3
fire = 4
shock = 3
siege = 0
location = 378
}



Next leaders I don't have exact dates on, all are situated around 1864, since they commanded various divisions in the Belgian armies.
Make some of them appear some 10 years earlier, some later, whatever you wish.

  • Van der Linden - Lieutenant-General - 2/4/2/0
  • Sapin - Lieutenant-General - 2/3/2/0
  • Fleury-Dubay - Lieutenant-General - 3/3/2/0
  • Van Casteel - Lieutenant-General - 2/3/3/0
  • Lahure - Lieutenant-General - 4/2/4/0
  • Ablay - Lieutenant-General - 4/2/4/0
  • Du Pont - Lieutenant-General - 2/3/2/1

The first three four names are commanders of the Belgian infantry divisions in 1864, hence their stats being balanced. Lahure & Ablay were Cavalry commanders (Lancers & Curassiers), they have rather high movement & shock value. Du Pont was the commander of the Belgian artillery. He has a siege value.


---------------------------------------

##Belgian Army Names##

BEL;Regiment Karabiniers
BEL;2e Jagers te Voet
BEL;3e Jagers te Voet
BEL;1e Linieregiment
BEL;2e Linieregiment
BEL;3e Linieregiment
BEL;4e Linieregiment
BEL;5e Linieregiment
BEL;6e Linieregiment
BEL;1e Jagers te Paard
BEL;2e Jagers te Paard
BEL;1e Lansiers
BEL;2e Lansiers
BEL;3e Lansiers
BEL;4e Lansiers
BEL;Regiment Gidsen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back