I agree overall and have argued this point in the past. Unfortunately the game designers have a wikipedia-level knowledge of Weber and are from a reformation country so they adopt a very stereotypical view of the religious wars and enlightenment.
EU4 - Art of War - Dev Diary 7 - Religious Leagues, The Reformation and the Near East
- Thread starter Wizzington
- Start date
-
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.
- Status
I agree overall and have argued this point in the past. Unfortunately the game designers have a wikipedia-level knowledge of Weber and are from a reformation country so they adopt a very stereotypical view of the religious wars and enlightenment.
Well, it sounds like 1-2 wars where the AI is less likely to peace out, so more damage will be done before the war is over. So if you don't take sides and instead start picking off countries, you should be able to dominate Europe while they're divided.
Where's the button for supporting a reform? Or does the Emperor not have it and I forgot? Otherwise: everything in the DD looks cool. The map of the Middle East is now more detailed than the CK2 one (although CK2 has multiple holdings per province).
If a Catholic country joins the Protestant league as a Catholic does it result in an opinion malus with other Catholic countries and/or The Pope?
The Emperor can't support reforms since he is the one who proposes them.
I know. I apologized for my hasty comment in the previous page. Though do keep in mind the new Papal mechanics.
Well, even if we don't agree with the Dev's politics or misinformation, at least they are generous enough to let us mod out the historical inaacuracies (if you know how to mod, that is).
Are Reformed HRE states are lumped together with the Protestants in League wars?
So they are by default neutral if a league war happens. A little odd I suppose, but perhaps necessary.
So they are by default neutral if a league war happens. A little odd I suppose, but perhaps necessary.
Last edited:
Not sure I agree with that. Coalitions aren't moddable and their implementation is extremely inaccurate. Exiled units have no historical basis, yet while exiling pre-war created quite an uproar, to my knowledge it wasn't made moddable.
Then there are things like truce scaling which would be better served in a settings options at the start of the game. You might not be able to change it and still get achievements, but it should be there for casual players to set.
By that I meant decisions, events, religions, ideas, provinces, etc. Not the hardcoded stuff.
What happens if the current Emperor dies during a war? Will the war continue and the electors in his league vote on the next one?
This! Peace of Westphalia should be a huge divide in history. After that, conquests should become way harder until the revolutions..., so that would be about 100 years of static borders in Europe or far greater AE and OE penalties. After the revolution hits, all hell should break loose considering players want to expand. They should become revolutionary empires though to be able to conquer a lot
123 new provinces to the middle east! That's gonna make the Ottomans a lot more interesting!
I really enjoy the idea of religious league wars. It does sound extremely fun to have one or two massive wars to settle the European religious issues.
I really enjoy the idea of religious league wars. It does sound extremely fun to have one or two massive wars to settle the European religious issues.
No kidding. It is a rather lazy stance to stay "Catholicism = hates science because they were mean to Gallileo". If anything, their view on scientific study of the world and harmony between scripture and the natural law (a literal view) promotes science much more than a direct literalist adherence to the Bible.
[Note: The distinction between literal and literalist is vital to the comment I made - please Google it if my comment doesn't make sense. I point this out because of a flame war a similar comment got on a EUIII discussion.
]
Last edited:
because that is what happened, it basically created the principle of national soverignity within the empire.
Not really. That concept had been alive since the medieval ages, and far before the Westphalia with Augsburg. If anything the Treaty of Westpahlia hurdled the Empire on a faster route to dissolution by having many of the states in it group together for mutual defense.
No, I understand it perfectly, and I agree with everything you have to say.
As for Gallileo, it was more of a battle between hubris and "needs proof" instead of science and religion. The problem the Vatican had with Gallileo's theory was he didn't have the proper proof to back up his claims (because the instruments required to do so weren't invented yet), and they didn't want to endorse anything that was still disputable.
Of course, Gallileo didn't help his case when he claimed that his theory was accurate beyond a doubt by leaving out the disclaimer that the Pope requested he put in his book, and then made things worse by antagonizing the Pope specifically via satire.
The HRE was weakening during this period, definitely. I've always found it odd how there's an inexorable strengthening of the HRE over this period in EUIV, rather than a devolution of its power over time, as happened historically.
In a way, I wish there were three major tracks to take the HRE down:
1) Religiously intolerant, diplomatically or forcibly bringing heretics back to the fold, becoming internally more centralized under the Emperor amongst adherents. -- This is the state of the HRE pre-Augsburg.
2) Religiously biased, trying to keep Catholicism dominant, but allowing Protestant/Reformed to exist within member states, or shedding intolerant unrepentant princes that wanted full religious freedom. -- This is the state of the HRE post-Augsburg.
3) Religiously tolerant, showing no favoritism at the state level, keeping its borders and member states, yet becoming increasingly decentralized, all at the cost of alienating the Pope and those nations (Protestant or Catholic) who wanted to be raving zealots. -- It would be an "alternate" history choice if you adopted this early in the 16th Century. This is ideally/arguably the state of the HRE post-Westphalia, though there was still much bitterness and distrust, and more the de facto case post-Enlightenment.
These major courses of steering the HRE were the actual choice Emperors were faced with historically. The failure of the Edict of Worms, and the Peaces of Augsburg and Westphalia showed that, over time, it was harder and harder for any Emperor to unilaterally enforce his views on the Empire as a whole. So the question is: how do we keep the Empire together when it is religiously heterodox?
It also raises the entire question of the HRE itself. After all the Schmalkaldic League was an alternative to the HRE proposed by the Protestant princes of the 16th Century. It also admitted reformed Denmark to its ranks.
I would hope a Thirty Years War scenario might allow for the formation of more than just a temporary coalition. The Schmalkaldic League should be a formable confederate state of Protestant/Reformed nations, with a lot of the same rules as the HRE* with Electors, etc. -- but for Protestant/Reformed nations. Member states needed to contribute forces -- historically, 10,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry -- for a standing army. It existed from 1531 - 1555. It only devolved back into its separate states which resumed infeudation under the HRE because of guarantees they were given by the Peace of Augsburg.
The Confederation of the Rhine (1806-1813), and the German Confederation (1815-1848) further show there were alternate desires to form a united "Germany" apart from, or if Austria had gotten its way under Metternich, as an extension to, the HRE.
Right now, again, color me underwhelmed at this representation of the Thirty Years War. I remain hopeful in the long run to see Paradox truly give meaning and depth to the entire Reformation/Counter-Reformation/Enlightenment evolution of Europe.
But... this dev diary was not what I was looking for.
* Generally, I also believe there needs to be ways to have more "Empire"-like structures in the game than just the HRE. Confederations like the Hansa or the Schmalkaldic League, even player-defined delineation of separate territories inside large sprawling blobs, etc.
In a way, I wish there were three major tracks to take the HRE down:
1) Religiously intolerant, diplomatically or forcibly bringing heretics back to the fold, becoming internally more centralized under the Emperor amongst adherents. -- This is the state of the HRE pre-Augsburg.
2) Religiously biased, trying to keep Catholicism dominant, but allowing Protestant/Reformed to exist within member states, or shedding intolerant unrepentant princes that wanted full religious freedom. -- This is the state of the HRE post-Augsburg.
3) Religiously tolerant, showing no favoritism at the state level, keeping its borders and member states, yet becoming increasingly decentralized, all at the cost of alienating the Pope and those nations (Protestant or Catholic) who wanted to be raving zealots. -- It would be an "alternate" history choice if you adopted this early in the 16th Century. This is ideally/arguably the state of the HRE post-Westphalia, though there was still much bitterness and distrust, and more the de facto case post-Enlightenment.
These major courses of steering the HRE were the actual choice Emperors were faced with historically. The failure of the Edict of Worms, and the Peaces of Augsburg and Westphalia showed that, over time, it was harder and harder for any Emperor to unilaterally enforce his views on the Empire as a whole. So the question is: how do we keep the Empire together when it is religiously heterodox?
It also raises the entire question of the HRE itself. After all the Schmalkaldic League was an alternative to the HRE proposed by the Protestant princes of the 16th Century. It also admitted reformed Denmark to its ranks.
I would hope a Thirty Years War scenario might allow for the formation of more than just a temporary coalition. The Schmalkaldic League should be a formable confederate state of Protestant/Reformed nations, with a lot of the same rules as the HRE* with Electors, etc. -- but for Protestant/Reformed nations. Member states needed to contribute forces -- historically, 10,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry -- for a standing army. It existed from 1531 - 1555. It only devolved back into its separate states which resumed infeudation under the HRE because of guarantees they were given by the Peace of Augsburg.
The Confederation of the Rhine (1806-1813), and the German Confederation (1815-1848) further show there were alternate desires to form a united "Germany" apart from, or if Austria had gotten its way under Metternich, as an extension to, the HRE.
Right now, again, color me underwhelmed at this representation of the Thirty Years War. I remain hopeful in the long run to see Paradox truly give meaning and depth to the entire Reformation/Counter-Reformation/Enlightenment evolution of Europe.
But... this dev diary was not what I was looking for.
* Generally, I also believe there needs to be ways to have more "Empire"-like structures in the game than just the HRE. Confederations like the Hansa or the Schmalkaldic League, even player-defined delineation of separate territories inside large sprawling blobs, etc.
- Status