EU 1715-1747 cont. timeline.

[unmerged(13)]

they'd be eating Curried Herring perhaps, yum.


Or perhaps steamed monkey brains, no disrespect to anyone from Iran / Iraq here


Do I remember a 'detachment' as being defined as less than 1000 troops? Is this what the Persians shipped over? If so did these troops make a difference in any fights or did they simply occupy territory?

There's a restriction (weight value) placed upon the number of troops that can travel by sea at any one time. It would be silly to allow massive invasion forces because, as someone else mentioned in another forum, these sorts of 'sea invasions' didn't really occur in the European theatre until the 18th century, and then only in very restricted numbers.

You might also get away with calling those Persians as mercenaries hired by the Dutch. They only numbered at between 1,000-3,000 men and they didn't contribute much at all, except causing themselves to be a nuisance to the population in Plymouth


Sapura

[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 07-08-2000).]

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Sapura:
Dark,
It's not unrealistic at all. Extended periods of instability occured in many countries.

Russian time of troubles, in reality the external wars finished in 1617, however the period of internal unrest started in 1600 and finished around 1620. That's 20 years.

Polish deluge.. 1648-1667.

Just two examples ...
Sapura

Sapura,
I'm not talking about 'periods of instability'. In this case, it appears (although it is somewhat hard to tell exactly what happened from the AAR) that England was effectively partitioned between two competing factions in a civil war, who then settled down to make peace for a long time, and that the civil war was not completely resolved even by the end of the game. This is unrealistic because both sides should want complete control over England and should fight continuously to achieve this. The Russian 'Time of Troubles' and the Polish 'Deluge', conversely, were periods where internal instability was compounded by foreign interventions, and still neither led to anything like the events occurring in England in the AAR.

Johan,
I (and I'm sure most historians) consider the Hundred-Years War to be a dynastic struggle caused by antagonism and rivalry between the monarchs of England and France. The fact that the King of England controlled some territory in France doesn't make it into a civil war.

Dragon,
Your examples are ' great and lengthy upheavals' not civil wars. Without getting into too much detail: The conflicts in Vietnam and Angola both originated from their struggle for independence and were perpetuated by large-scale foreign intervention. Afghanistan's troubles were intiated by Soviet intervention. Also, even despite Afghanistan's lack of a long historical tradition of unity, it took less than 15 years after the Soviets pulled out for one faction to gain control over almost the entire country. Ulster and Kashmir are the equivalent in EU of having rebels causing trouble in one province. None of your examples are comparable to a relatively stable, prospering country suddenly splitting apart in a civil war and being partitioned.

 

[unmerged(13)]

This is unrealistic because both sides should want complete control over England and should fight continuously to achieve this.

Not necessarily. As you read from the AAR England was surrounded by powerful hostile nations. France and the Netherlands spring to mind, and to a lesser degree Spain. Had they fought continuously they would have been submerged by their enemies in continental Europe.

The Russian 'Time of Troubles' and the Polish 'Deluge', conversely, were periods where internal instability was compounded by foreign interventions, and still neither led to anything like the events occurring in England in the AAR.


This is exactly what happened in the AAR as far as I recall. Instability, causing civil war, which led to invasions / war between the two English sides. It's not at all unreasonable to live within a state of perpetual strife, without causing all out war against your fellow kin. The Poles did this for most of the late 18th century, after their country fell into total anarchy, previous to the partitions.

Sapura




[This message has been edited by Sapura (edited 08-08-2000).]

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Sapura:
Not necessarily. As you read from the AAR England was surrounded by powerful hostile nations. France and the Netherlands spring to mind, and to a lesser degree Spain. Had they fought continuously they would have been submerged by their enemies in continental Europe.

However, neither France nor the Netherlands intervened until much later and a united England would have been more effective in fighting them off. As it turns out, the partition left the 'Royalists' so weak that they were vassalized by France.

Originally posted by Sapura:
This is exactly what happened in the AAR as far as I recall. Instability, causing civil war, which led to invasions / war between the two English sides. It's not at all unreasonable to live within a state of perpetual strife, without causing all out war against your fellow kin. The Poles did this for most of the late 18th century, after their country fell into total anarchy, previous to the partitions.

In the AAR, no instability was mentioned in England until 1723, when it is suddenly partitioned between the 'English' and the 'Royalists'. Poland historically suffered severe instability from the Deluge to its partition as well as numerous foreign invasions.

 

[unmerged(13)]

However, neither France nor the Netherlands intervened until much later and a united England would have been more effective in fighting them off. As it turns out, the partition left the 'Royalists' so weak that they were vassalized by France.


It was more a case of seeking protection from the French, incase the Dutch decided they wanted a piece of of the English isle.


In the AAR, no instability was mentioned in England until 1723, when it is suddenly partitioned between the 'English' and the 'Royalists'.

I can't add everything in But a civil war doesn't just occur, our of nothing. There has to be strife, leading to section splitting off from the establishment, leading to civil war.

Poland historically suffered severe instability from the Deluge to its partition as well as numerous foreign invasions.

Yeah, but that was a direct consequence of civil war with one section of its community, the Cossacks. The Cossacks seeked protection from Muscovy which then invaded in 1654, followed by Sweden in 1655. Everything fell apart after that until 1667.

Sapura

 

[unmerged(164)]

Dark Knight: I think you are veiwing this from a historical respective specifically to England. England went through numerous times of civil strife that ended with England whole again and a resolution. I would say that England was more the exception than the rule historically. I realize this is a historical game but to make special rules of revolt for a specific country would be a pain I suspect.

If the Welsh would have spun off as an independent would that have been acceptable?

Is it better to have peace with some manpower left in the country/countries or should the computer allow the nation to bleed itself so dry economically and manpower wise that it has no ability at all to defend itself?

How long did the War of the Roses last? Wasn't that an example of a situation were England was pretty much split between north and south?

 

[unmerged(212)]

Not to disrupt the current tone of this thread, but I'd just like to ask if the game allows revolts to spread between motherland and colonies and visa-versa.

I believe this was asked before nobody had ever experienced it directly. I'd like to know if it is theoretically possible?

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Dragon:
Dark Knight: I think you are veiwing this from a historical respective specifically to England.

Yes, but then England is the country in question, isn't it?

England went through numerous times of civil strife that ended with England whole again and a resolution. I would say that England was more the exception than the rule historically. I realize this is a historical game but to make special rules of revolt for a specific country would be a pain I suspect.

If the Welsh would have spun off as an independent would that have been acceptable?

Yes, this would be acceptable because the Welsh at times sought independence from England (although, if I remember correctly, the province in the CG called 'Wales' include a substantial amount of English territory). What (to me) is unacceptable is that in the AAR part of England apparently decided that it wanted to be a separate country from the rest of England.

Is it better to have peace with some manpower left in the country/countries or should the computer allow the nation to bleed itself so dry economically and manpower wise that it has no ability at all to defend itself?

In a rebellion where one or several provinces are trying to secede from a country, that country may well decide that it would be too costly to reconquer the province(s) and so agree to peace. However, in a true 'civil war', both sides claim control of the entire country and would only allow it to be partitioned in exceptional circumstances.

How long did the War of the Roses last? Wasn't that an example of a situation were England was pretty much split between north and south?

The War of the Roses was an extended internal dispute between competing factions of nobility. Although the north of England was more Yorkist than the south, there was never any possibility that the Lancastrians and Yorkists would divide England between them. Both Houses claimed the Crown of all England.

 

[unmerged(164)]

Nothing is impossible. Highly improbable but not impossible. Tell me 20 years ago that the Russians would be living in a democratic society and that the one time superpower would be a shell of it's former greatness. Tell and Englishman in 1750 that the soon the American Colonies will become an independent nation. Tell anyone in 1800 that in 200 years the U.S. that little English colony, will be the most powerful nation in the world they would put you in a padded cell. (No offense intend to any of the reader living in China that might be able to argue this statement). You get the idea I am sure..........History is what we live with, as someone aptly stated when we were having a similar discussion about the Papal States in Africa, if the game followed history exactly the game would be no fun to play.

 

[unmerged(212)]

Originally posted by Dragon:
Tell me 20 years ago that the Russians would be living in a democratic society.

Dragon I agree with your post in general... I just singled out this point because I don't know if they're quite to a true democracy yet.

 

[unmerged(28)]

Originally posted by Jiminov:
Not to disrupt the current tone of this thread, but I'd just like to ask if the game allows revolts to spread between motherland and colonies and visa-versa.

I believe this was asked before nobody had ever experienced it directly. I'd like to know if it is theoretically possible?

Spread and spread... Hmmm...
It doesn't work that way. I can't give you the full story here and unfortenantly the full story is needed to understand the mechanism fully. But I can say like this. If you have a lot of uprisings in 'Good Ol' England', then it is very probable that you also experience them in your American Colonies.

/Greven

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Dragon:
Nothing is impossible. Highly improbable but not impossible. Tell me 20 years ago that the Russians would be living in a democratic society and that the one time superpower would be a shell of it's former greatness. Tell and Englishman in 1750 that the soon the American Colonies will become an independent nation. Tell anyone in 1800 that in 200 years the U.S. that little English colony, will be the most powerful nation in the world they would put you in a padded cell.

There were people who foresaw all three of these developments. de Tocqueville (writing a bit after 1800), for example, thought that the United States and Russia were destined to become the most powerful nations because of their great potential in land and resources. An English paper (I forget the name) in 1763 at the end of the Seven Years' War argued that the UK should let the French keep Canada, because otherwise the colonists would not be held in check. Besides, this has to do with considering how past events could have gone differently, not foreseeing future ones. Also, although improbable events should be possible, they should by definition have little chance of occurring. If a game occurred in which Switzerland conquered all of France in, say, 50 years, I don't think that you'd be defending it on the grounds that nothing is impossible (No offense to any Swiss reading this).

(No offense intend to any of the reader living in China that might be able to argue this statement). You get the idea I am sure..........History is what we live with, as someone aptly stated when we were having a similar discussion about the Papal States in Africa, if the game followed history exactly the game would be no fun to play.

Obviously, the point of the game is that it diverges from history. However, it should diverge from history in a realistic way (as, judging by the AARs, it does almost all of the time). In the case of the partition of England in Sapura's AAR, I think it has diverged in a decidely unrealistic way, hence my complaint.

 

[unmerged(225)]

Why would a divided England be any more difficult to accept than say Portugal divided from Spain and Catalonia a province? England to this day has significant regional divisions which were even more pronounced in the past (recall in 15th and 16th Century many people in 'England' did not speak English (at least not as we understand it). They spoke Cornish or regional dialects that travelers from London frequently complained were uninteligible. The English Civil Wars of the 1640s were largely regional. What if the sides hade stalemated on the battlefields? England may have achieved national unity (except for those darn pesky Welsh, Irish and Scots) quicker than other European nations, but that did not make it inevitable historically.

 

[unmerged(181)]

I do not have a particular problem with the AAR English Civil War. If history has taught us anything it is that crisis and instability can create great divisions in a people that seemed unified beforehand. Without knowing the particulars of this civil war (EU is not that detailed), to have one part of the country secede from the other after attempts to unify the country by force have failed seems realistic. Unusual but realistic.

On the other hand, I cannot come up with any parallel examples for this time period in European history at the moment. Most revolts involved either colonial possessions or subjugated countries (Scotland & England, Ukraine & Poland, Ottomans & the Balkans, etc.). Maybe because these revolts were the norm, the 'Us vs. Them' mentality kept the internal divisions in check. Since 1792, there have been a number of examples of 'unified' countries dividing with the intent of spliting the country with various success. Usually the result was reunification but sometimes it took a long time.

What did seem strange was that Ireland seemed particularly quiet. I would expect a revolt there to take advantage of the situation (and in Jutland to reform Denmark as well).

 

[unmerged(276)]

I find this 'English Civil War' phenomenon very interesting. Obviously it is not hard linked to a time frame (ie its not an event that is only supposed to happen in england in the 1640's) which i think is good. I like the way EU is very detailed, but seems to stay 'historical' in a very organic way rather than with hard coded things that might not make sense in the 'alternate history'.

I have a couple questions about it though:

Have you ever seen it happen to another country? Can their only be only one 'Royalists' country in the game? Or are they called 'English Royalists' or something. What if the English and French Revolutions (I consider the English civil war to be akin to an 'english revolution' much as it was anti-monarchist in the way the french revolution was) happen at the same time? Then would the 'Royalists' be one country with provinces in France and England? If that is the case I think it would be a problem and something that would detract from an otherwise very logical game.

Assuming however that any 'French Royalists' and 'English Royalists' would be kept seperate, then i think its a very interesting way to add these institutional revolutions to the game. However I think that the point that was made earlier is true, in these sorts of social revolutions, the conflict is much more about which path a homogenous people will take, either under a Kings leadership or under a 'Commonwealth' or Republic. It seems to me that at the very least these two states in england should have a permanant -200 relationship. Perhaps they should even stay in a perpetual state of war until one conquers the other.

The Welsh being allowed to set up their own independent state is one thing, but I just cant see two independent states in England Proper, one rulled by Charles I and one ruled by Cromwell for instance. Especially i cant see them making peace and eventually allying together or something. If the Royalists changed their name to the Principality of Cornwall it would at least make more sense in terms of sounding like two seperate states that have agreed to acknowledge each others existance.

Equally illogical to me would be a 'French Republique' in the southern half of France and 'France' in the northern half (or whats left after the Spanish and Dutch). I could see Duchy of Aquitaine or something but the idea of 'Royalists' or 'Republicans' seems to be synonomous with continued civil warfare. So while i like the idea of the states splitting into into partitions and fighting, the mechanism seems to fall apart if they make peace or ally with each other, at least if they still keep names that sound like sides in a civil war instead of names of independant states.

I like that EU has a mechanism for these revolutions that is more than just a revolt of their provinces, but I really think that in a case of the English or French Revolutions, the war should continue until one or the other side is crushed and thereafter you have one state which will either have the King or Cromwell, or the Bourbons or the Republic, etc.

Now I can see one reason that the designers would have done it this way, what if you are France and you have to fight the French Republicans in 1789? (Or in EU maybe if the conditions are right it happens in 1723 this time). Well, they dont want you totally knocked out of the game so you have to at least be able to keep Paris. Or at least one province somewhere needs to be preserved as the HQ of the 'French Monarchy in Exile', etc. So from that point of view I can see that it might be a system designed to solve a certain problem, and the designers have to make some compromises here and there to allow a player who is playing one of those countries to enjoy the revolution as a challenge from their perspective, but it might make some things seem unrealistic when seen from the perspective of another country when the AI is the one who is dealing with the revolution.

Which brings me to my last question. If you are playing France or England and you have a revolution, are you automatically stuck on one side or the other? Or can you choose to proclaim yourself a Royalist or a Roundhead. Or in the case of France a monarchist or a republican?

Despite all that has been said regarding 'partitions during revolutions', even if EU has a problem on this point (and i dont have enough information to understand if it is really a problem or not) I would still have to give it a 99/100 at least as far as what i have seen so far.

Lets face it, us picking at an event that only happens once in the whole game and not necissarily at all is a sign that the game in general seems very much above what we have come to expect out of this kind of game. We have begun to judge this game not so much as a game, but as an 'alternate history'. I think this is good and the discussions can only strengthen the game (and any EU2 project, personally i would love to see Paradox make a game with a time period ranging from around 1776 or 1789 to 1918 or so) however, once the discussions are over and the game is finished it will in the end be just that, a game. So I am looking forward to EU, Royalists or no!

 

[Dark Knight]

The 'Royalists' phenomenon applies only to England. It doesn't happen in other countries. Also, this discussion was continued shortly afterward in the 'Nation Specific Behavior' thread, if you haven't seen that already. And yes, I agree that EU will be an incredible game even with imperfections. However, I thought (and continue to think) that an event that can ruin one of the most important nations is of no small importance.

 

[unmerged(276)]

Ok I went back and read that post, and a ton of others and I still have a couple questions. Im not sure if i missed the answers in the back posts (there was a TON of flamewars to sift through) but it looked at one point like they were thinking of taking this event and the French Hugenots out.

Is this the case? Im not sure about the English Civil War, i would like to see them continue on with the war and have -200 relations all the time i guess, but i DEFINANTLY think that an independent french HUEGENOT (sp?) state is a good idea. Maybe they should have a relatively bad relationship with France as well. It seems to me like a truce between the French and the Hugenots makes more sense (because it is like what happened historically, the Huegenots given various autonomous powers ) than a truce between the Royalists and Parliament.

Unless of course the English Civil War is seen as a war between a mostly protestant controlled Parliament and a Catholic Monarch. Hmm i must admit i did not think of it that way. Charles I, and Charles II were Catholic weren't they? It still seems like the issues between the king and parliament were more the kind of thing that would not be sorted out by a partition though. In France you didnt have quite the same dynamics and the Huegenots could be given some autonomy without them necissarily caring about control of the rest of the country. It seems like The King and Parliament would always be focused on London. At the very least it seems the 'Royalist' partition should change its name to something else if it makes peace with England. Perhaps the Kingdom of [insert name of capital province].

But anyway, i really want to know are these kind of events still in the game or are they dropping them?

 

[unmerged(234)]

Yes, it was betwen a totaly protestant parlament and a catolich king.
Religon was one of the two main reason for the English civil war.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Count_M:
Is this the case? Im not sure about the English Civil War, i would like to see them continue on with the war and have -200 relations all the time i guess, but i DEFINANTLY think that an independent french HUEGENOT (sp?) state is a good idea. Maybe they should have a relatively bad relationship with France as well. It seems to me like a truce between the French and the Hugenots makes more sense (because it is like what happened historically, the Huegenots given various autonomous powers ) than a truce between the Royalists and Parliament.

I agree (and I think I mentioned this earlier in the other related thread). The French protestants actually did become semi-autonomous. However the English factions should fight until one defeats the other.

Unless of course the English Civil War is seen as a war between a mostly protestant controlled Parliament and a Catholic Monarch. Hmm i must admit i did not think of it that way. Charles I, and Charles II were Catholic weren't they? It still seems like the issues between the king and parliament were more the kind of thing that would not be sorted out by a partition though.

No, Charles I wasn't Catholic (although he was suspected of Catholic sympathies). A partition simply wasn't possible because the religious divisions weren't great enough (certainly not as great as in France) and also very importantly the different religious dominations in England weren't neatly geographically divided whereas in France the protestants were heavily concentrated in certain areas.

But anyway, i really want to know are these kind of events still in the game or are they dropping them?

Good question. Anyone have an answer?

 

[unmerged(276)]

Hmmm, one of my history books said that upon his death Charles II achieved a 'final political victory' by having his Catholic brother James II ascend the throne. I guess I just assumed that that meant that Charles I and his son Charles II had been catholic too.

Anyway as far as the game mechanics go, i would vote for having both events in, but make sure the Royalists and Parliamentarians never stop fighting until only one or the other wins and becomes the 'English' again. In fact i think you should not just have 'Royalists' and 'English'. You should have 'Royalists' and 'Parliament' with perhaps the colonies staying 'English'. When one of the Royalists or Parliament beat each other (occupy all the others provinces in England) then it goes back to being 'English' thus you avoid the whole annexation problem.

As for the Huegenots, leave them in, they make sense.