Facelifting France: Map, mechanics and more

[Isildur9526]

Note: This is a work in progress.

Hello all, and welcome!

The purpose of this thread is to compile my own suggestions for how to improve France (a nation currently portrayed anachronistically as being a homogeneous blob) in the hope that some of these ideas may find their way into the game.

To start, I am going to say that this is in no way a buff or a nerf to France, but rather an overhaul. The main challenge I have faced in compiling these suggestions, and the biggest question for whoever at Paradox reads this to consider: How do we make France more interesting, immersive and historically accurate, but also bring plenty of challenges at the same time?

With that question in mind, I’ll go through a comprehensive list of the changes that I am proposing in posts throughout this thread, complete with my reasoning for each change.

NB: Everything I post in this thread may be subject to change when necessary.

Table of contents.
Part I.1: The Map.
Part I.2: Map Miscellanea.
Part II: France's Subjects.
Part III: Introducing the Appanage.

Forthcoming Parts.
Part IV: Royal Authority.
Part V: Occitania.

 

[DeftSwede]

Part III. Introducing the Appanage.

So this part was a long time coming; I actually have part 4 in progress, but I haven’t had the time or motivation to post more until now. Thanks to @neondt for including this thread in this week’s dev diary! Anyways, here's Part 3.

Edit: Also note that "Appanage" is merely a potential name for the subject type. Some users (@JSparks101 etc.) have pointed out that other names for it such as "Fief" are more accurate, so that's something to keep in mind.

So as I mentioned before, it’s entirely possible to create a new subject type to represent France’s subjects, and it should not be ruled out as a solution to the problems that plagued the pre-Common Sense setup. I have identified some of the main issues of the old system, which the new subject type would aim to fix:

1. They took up all of France’s diplomatic relation slots, incapacitating them diplomatically and making the vassals an annoyance for a France player.
   
   
2. The vassals’ armies made France much more annoying to fight against, having to constantly chase down small stacks. Not to mention they wouldn’t peace out until you beat France itself.
   
   
3. They were too easy to just annex and forget about early on using diplomatic mana.
   
   
4. There weren’t many options as a vassal. You had to either stick with France and hold out until you got annexed or hope to exploit their weakness in the early game by getting rivals of France to support you.

Here’s how these issues could be tackled:

1. Appanages shouldn’t take up a diplomatic relation slot. This solves the problem entirely, allowing France to be as decentralised as it wants to without being penalised for it.
   
   
2. Appanages would have different diplomatic relationships to their overlord than a regular vassal, such as not being able to join the overlord’s offensive wars. I go into more detail about this below.
   
   
3. Appanages can’t be annexed directly using diplomatic points. Instead, a separate system of annexing them would be used (see Part IV).
   
   
4. Appanages would have more options available to them making them a worthwhile pick for a challenging campaign.

How Appanages would function.

Appanages would function as a mix of vassal, tributary and ally. They:

• Would not be called into France’s offensive wars
  
  
• Would not take up a diplomatic relation slot
  
  
• Can’t have war declared on them by France
  
  
• Can call in France as a co-belligerent if they are attacked by a foreign power
  
  
• Can’t call France into their offensive wars
  
  
• Are called into France’s defensive wars (but they can refuse similar to an ally - if they do they suffer the same penalties as an ally not joining)
  
  
• Would have relative power calculated by their own strength plus those supporting their independence vs France and not the strength of all appanages - prevents AI appanages all being rebellious at the start of the game
  
  
• Would be able to form alliances with other appanages
  
  
• Would be able to declare war on other appanages (but France through an event would be able to step in, and demand an end to the war or to let them keep fighting)

The Appanage subject type would have a max government rank of 1 (duchy).

They also would pay tribute to France in the same way as tributaries. This partially represents the taille, the national tax that was made permanent in 1439 to fund the first standing army. Before this, the French monarchs had been expected to survive on the revenues of the royal domain, but after it was made permanent the taille became a huge source of income for the kingdom, totaling roughly half its income in the 1570s and was a huge boon to France’s wars across the continent.

There’s also another key aspect of the Appanage subject type that would be different from regular vassals: they would be able to enter into Royal Marriages with other nations. This is not just historically accurate but also ties in nicely to the system of annexing said appanages (see Part IV).

The nations that would have the Appanage subject type in 1444 are as follows:

-Orleans
-Armagnac
-Auvergne
-Bourbon
-Albret
-Foix

But why not Provence and Burgundy?

For one, Burgundy was practically independent of France in all but name. The duke of Burgundy, Philippe III in 1435 styled himself ‘Grand Duke of the West’, and furthermore Burgundy’s influence was such that it was fighting wars of its own and going against the French monarchs. And it wouldn’t make sense to have France being called into Burgundy’s defensive wars, because the French monarchs were actively trying to undermine Burgundy.

And Provence had a very different history to that of the other French fiefs; although it was within the French sphere of influence throughout history it had belonged to the Catalan house of Barcelona, and then the house of Anjou under its Neapolitan rulers, and finally the house of Valois-Anjou, which was a cadet branch of the house of Valois but nevertheless, I decided to keep Provence independent.

The Appanage government type.

Alongside a unique subject type, there would also be the unique Appanage government type. It would provide the following modifiers (subject to change):

Government Type: Appanage

+25% Improve Relations (puts emphasis on conducting diplomacy - I’ll talk about why it will be so important for them in the next part)
-25% National Manpower Modifier
-25% Land Force Limit Modifier (the concept of a standing army was just developing, meaning monarchs often relied on armies from the nobility, including the rulers of appanages - forcelimit and manpower reduction would represent that. It also helps prevent vassal swarm which was a big issue previously due to OPMs base forcelimit)

I also thought about including -25% Mercenary Maintenance Modifier as another bonus, though there is not much historical basis for that.

This was a shorter part this time around, just an introduction to the Appanage. I haven’t discussed some aspects like the subject interactions yet, however I will in the future. In the next part, I will go over a whole new mechanic for France that would re-define the gameplay in the region. Stay tuned!

I think these ideas are well thought out and put together and was thinking about suggesting something like this myself, although it was more of a by product of trying to improve the nature of the hundred year's war and the Anglo-French rivalry altogether.

Some points on the appanages :-
- While I also thought that the appanages themselves should not take up any diplo slots, I couldn't quite justify it, even though I agree with almost all your points on how they would function. Instead, I would suggest that they collectively take up 1 diplo slot, which is to say, by virtue of having only one or ten appanages, France is penalised by 1 diplo slot regardless.
- Part of the reason I say this, is that it would be cool to be able to bring more nations into the fold. In this sense, I believe that France could have a special CB like the admit hegemony CB from Vicky II, in which it could declare war on the likes of Brittany, Burgundy, Provence which gives reduced costs to force vassalisation. This could also be used on nations holding french culture land land and releasing the land as an appanage i.e. Avignon and the Papal States
- Some restrictions on this action could be that france can only have appanages that are of the french culture group, ensuring that France cannot do a shogun.

Some wider points on France in general :-
- In terms of the Hundred Years War and certain disasters/events, I have a few quibbles. The first being that the War of the Roses is ticking at the beginning of the game, and many England players will trigger the disaster during the force union war vs France and hope to get an awesome king as a result (anything is better than Henry VI). This sort of breaks the immersion I feel when I play this out as the War of the Roses occurred BECAUSE the crown had given up all their land to France, not because Henry VI was infertile. Thus this disaster should be averted if you win the Hundred Years War as England.
- If France wins the Hundred Years War, then they could have the option to either take the territory for themselves of create new/old appanages out of the reclaimed territory i.e. the duchy of Guyenne/Aquitaine or the duchy of Normandy
- If England were to win the Hundred Year's War however, what would happen to these appanages? Would they remain subject to PU'd France? Would they become independent? Or would they become appanages of England. As for England themselves, if they had regained control of France would Great Britain have ever existed? Would they even speak English in England? Well, I don't think so, but I believe I have a solution and its not exactly simple:
New tag is formed called Angevin
Angevin is formed from the land England owns in France and the French cores that once belonged to the Angevin empire
England in the British Isles becomes a junior partner of Angevin and retains the English Monarchy government
The remainder of France becomes a junior partner of Angevin and retains its appanages
Culture becomes Francien
English culture becomes accepted (even though Angevin doesn't directly own any land with it initially)
Transforms Henry VI into a competent ruler -> 6 Adm, 4 Dip, 5 Mil (I mean he just secured his birthright, give him some proper recognition)
Gives Henry VI decent general leader stats -> 6 Fire, 2 Shock, 4 Maneuver, 2 Seige
Capital changed to Anjou, if owned. If not capital starts in random province.
Integrating both France and England into Angevin does not use the normal process, but requires both nations to have 100 trust with Angevin. This would be complicated by making sure that many measures that can be used to increase trust with one nation, will surely decrease trust with the other. In normal behavior most subjects trust tick up to 100 without much intervention, but in this case will require active participation. For example, if you declare war using one of France's CB's, this will increase trust with France by 10, but will decrease trust by 5 with England. Conversely, the usual method of eliminating liberty desire could still exist, but tempered by affecting trust, so that every point of trust gained with England through development, is 2 lost with France and vice versa. These are just a few examples of how this could work, but I'm sure there are many more ways to make the balancing act involved in playing as Angevin as engaging as possible.
As a possible punishment for having low trust, a disaster could exist that could trigger if trust falls below 20 or something, leading to a potential civil war and/or loss of one or both of the PU's.

- You may also be wondering why you might want to force appanage on Burgundy when you can just try to conquer land and hope for Burgundian inheritance. Well, I would suggest removing this event and replacing it with a disaster for (AI) Burgundy, that is triggered if France declares a hegemony war on it, with the impending inheritance reliant on numerous factors. 1 being that burgundy must have negative war score below 25% in order for the disaster to tick, so that players don't instantly declare war on burgundy and wait for it to tick to 100. Burgundy also has no heir or a female heir. The final part of this would be some CK2 holy fury style crusade mechanic where nations can jostle for position to claim the Burgundian inheritance with claims, gold and prestige being used as an argument to justify why they should inherit these lands. This kind of system could make for some very interesting results/situations, but the biggest claimants and contributors are most likely going to be Austria/Holy Roman Emperor and France, which should make the the inheritors in most situations.

 

[Isildur9526]

- If England were to win the Hundred Year's War however, what would happen to these appanages? Would they remain subject to PU'd France? Would they become independent? Or would they become appanages of England. As for England themselves, if they had regained control of France would Great Britain have ever existed? Would they even speak English in England? Well, I don't think so, but I believe I have a solution and its not exactly simple:
New tag is formed called Angevin
Angevin is formed from the land England owns in France and the French cores that once belonged to the Angevin empire
England in the British Isles becomes a junior partner of Angevin and retains the English Monarchy government
The remainder of France becomes a junior partner of Angevin and retains its appanages
Culture becomes Francien
English culture becomes accepted (even though Angevin doesn't directly own any land with it initially)
Transforms Henry VI into a competent ruler -> 6 Adm, 4 Dip, 5 Mil (I mean he just secured his birthright, give him some proper recognition)
Gives Henry VI decent general leader stats -> 6 Fire, 2 Shock, 4 Maneuver, 2 Seige
Capital changed to Anjou, if owned. If not capital starts in random province.
Integrating both France and England into Angevin does not use the normal process, but requires both nations to have 100 trust with Angevin. This would be complicated by making sure that many measures that can be used to increase trust with one nation, will surely decrease trust with the other. In normal behavior most subjects trust tick up to 100 without much intervention, but in this case will require active participation. For example, if you declare war using one of France's CB's, this will increase trust with France by 10, but will decrease trust by 5 with England. Conversely, the usual method of eliminating liberty desire could still exist, but tempered by affecting trust, so that every point of trust gained with England through development, is 2 lost with France and vice versa. These are just a few examples of how this could work, but I'm sure there are many more ways to make the balancing act involved in playing as Angevin as engaging as possible.
As a possible punishment for having low trust, a disaster could exist that could trigger if trust falls below 20 or something, leading to a potential civil war and/or loss of one or both of the PU's.

First point is that the Angevin Empire wasn't really an empire, it is just the name given by historians to the period of English/French history where the kings of England ruled from Anjou and owned vast territories in France. Wikipedia refers to it as an "unofficial umbrella term".

Second, I don't think Henry VI would ever have been that competent a king even if he did regain France. He is widely believed to have inherited some sort of mental illness from his maternal grandfather, Charles V of France, who was mostly responsible for French losing so hard after Agincourt. Hell, he went into a mental breakdown for a whole year just because he lost everything in France.

Third it's difficult to piece together an alternate history scenario in which England wins the HYW. Do they control France with an iron fist and impose English customs on the people? Or do they, seeing the French populace outnumbering their own, broker a compromise where the two nations are ruled under one king but both have the same status, in some sort of Anglo-French union in which no side dominates? Of course the French would rather be independent than be ruled under an English king, so it's unlikely the union would have lasted longer than the Angevin Empire did.

Otherwise, this sounds fairly interesting and puts the trust mechanic in the spotlight which is nice. But be mindful that it's a Cossacks only feature meaning it would be hard to integrate with the base game.

 

[DeftSwede]

First point is that the Angevin Empire wasn't really an empire, it is just the name given by historians to the period of English/French history where the kings of England ruled from Anjou and owned vast territories in France. Wikipedia refers to it as an "unofficial umbrella term".

Second, I don't think Henry VI would ever have been that competent a king even if he did regain France. He is widely believed to have inherited some sort of mental illness from his maternal grandfather, Charles V of France, who was mostly responsible for French losing so hard after Agincourt. Hell, he went into a mental breakdown for a whole year just because he lost everything in France.

Third it's difficult to piece together an alternate history scenario in which England wins the HYW. Do they control France with an iron fist and impose English customs on the people? Or do they, seeing the French populace outnumbering their own, broker a compromise where the two nations are ruled under one king but both have the same status, in some sort of Anglo-French union in which no side dominates? Of course the French would rather be independent than be ruled under an English king, so it's unlikely the union would have lasted longer than the Angevin Empire did.

Otherwise, this sounds fairly interesting and puts the trust mechanic in the spotlight which is nice. But be mindful that it's a Cossacks only feature meaning it would be hard to integrate with the base game.

I agree with your points, however when it comes to the Angevin empire, i know that it was not an official empire and was anachronistically named by a Plantagenet historian during the Victorian era, but seeing England stretched across both the British Isles and France is a little jarring and I would imagine, if the union had continued, they would have developed a more interesting name, so Angevin is the best idea I've got for that.

Coming to your second point, just because its unlikely that Henry VI would have become a competent king if he had won the HYW, the point is perception. Most of the French would be submissive to the English, having lost and the English nobles would have no cause for revolt, since their French domains remain intact. Besides this reason, which I'll admit is a little flimsy, you can consider it a trade-off from the fact that, in my scenario, the Wars of the Roses will not fire unless you lose the HYW, meaning no new ruler Lancastrian or Yorkist ruler.

On the third point, that was why I had envisaged the fact that Angevin had both England and France as PU's, with the whole point being that it was balancing act keeping both happy. Too much favourable nation status, the other gets jealous and revolts. And in terms of English kings, it was too far off in the past that the kings of England were French. In fact I'm pretty sure that the language of the English court, was at this time, French. So there wouldn't be too much of a culture clash, at least not that I can see.

I appreciate the difficulty of the feature, but I feel its a little under utilised and I always felt there could be more done with it, yet I could never put my finger on what or how before now. Besides the integration mechanic could simply be a Cossacks only thing anyway, but it doesn't mean we have throw the whole idea of using it out

 

[Scorpene]

@neondt serious question here, can we propose some new French / Italian event here?
Events linked to the provinces (i have plenty of Idea for Toulon and other Harbour, linked to the wish of Richelieu and Colbert to conquer the sea and make France a naval power*), or to the History (Maison du Roy) mainly?


Or Paradox only wants us to speak about provinces?

* I've prepared that topic for such a long time, i feel it might be an interesting add for France (but also UK, incidently, and Netherland) in the Q4. That would give more flavour to naval combat but also to the economic side of building a fleet.

@neondt i almost wrote down the 3 event chains. Can i put it here? Or do you prefer me sending it directly to you?

 

[MiniaAr]

@DeftSwede
I really like your suggestion to have French fiefs/appenages (don't really care about the name) be counted as 1 diplomatic relation. Maybe with a rule limiting their number of provinces before they get upgraded to regular vassals/marches to prevent abuses (or a max % of overlord development)?
There is precedent for such a thing in the game, with Trade Leagues of merchant republics also counting as 1 dip slot independently from the number of members.

 

[PrussicAcid]

Yesterday, I was watching someone playing as Brittany and realised how bad the fortification line between Brittany and France is. As it stands, France can instantly push inland, destroy all armies and occupy everything in few month. This isn't good at all and not really representative of how strong the defenses were in both sides. The defensive line between the two countries is nowadays known as "Chateaux des Marches de Bretagne" (Brittany's Marches Castles). The density of forts on such a small space (including salt granaries) is pretty incredible. So invade Brittany in one click shouldn't be possible.

This is the map of where these forts are:

(link in french, unfortunately no english wiki page for this one) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marche_de_Bretagne

Actually in EU4 there is only one castle for this area in Anjou, held by Provence. Brittany got a level 1 fort because of the capital status but armies can just ignore it and push west.

My suggestions are:
- Remove the level 2 fort of Haut-Poitou and add a new one in Bas-Poitou (France).
- Add a level 2 fort in Maine (England).
- Add two level 2 fort in Nantais and Rennais (Brittany).
- Change Breton traditions from: +1 Yearly navy tradition / +10% trade steering; to: +1 Yearly navy tradition / -25% fort maintenance

Thanks for reading. I would be curious to know your opinion on this.

 

[Isildur9526]

Yesterday, I was watching someone playing as Brittany and realised how bad the fortification line between Brittany and France is. As it stands, France can instantly push inland, destroy all armies and occupy everything in few month. This isn't good at all and not really representative of how strong the defenses were in both sides. The defensive line between the two countries is nowadays known as "Chateaux des Marches de Bretagne" (Brittany's Marches Castles). The density of forts on such a small space (including salt granaries) is pretty incredible. So invade Brittany in one click shouldn't be possible.

This is the map of where these forts are:

(link in french, unfortunately no english wiki page for this one) https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marche_de_Bretagne

Actually in EU4 there is only one castle for this area in Anjou, held by Provence. Brittany got a level 1 fort because of the capital status but armies can just ignore it and push west.

My suggestions are:
- Remove the level 2 fort of Haut-Poitou and add a new one in Bas-Poitou (France).
- Add a level 2 fort in Maine (England).
- Add two level 2 fort in Nantais and Rennais (Brittany).
- Change Breton traditions from: +1 Yearly navy tradition / +10% trade steering; to: +1 Yearly navy tradition / -25% fort maintenance

Thanks for reading. I would be curious to know your opinion on this.

Seems a bit excessive to have level 2 forts in Nantais AND Rennais. I believe the level 1 already satsfies your goal of needing to get past Rennes in order to go further into Brittany, so Nantais should only have a level 1 if it's Brittany's capital. A fort in Maine is in retrospect unbalanced if France can just grab it immediately if England takes the option to DOW France for Surrender of Maine. Perhaps moving the fort from Poitiers to Bas-Poitou would better represent this, but again I would go with the city that was strategically important.

In short, the best solution is to move the fort from Finistere to Rennais to help Brittany better defend itself.

 

[PrussicAcid]

Yes, I was probably too ambitious. ^^

In term of game balance the fort capital on Nantais + a level 2 on Rennais are probably enough to help Brittany (not that sure for Finistere). At least, it would let a bit of time for its allies to step in the conflict, and for a human player to develop a different strategy. It's still better than waiting to be fully occupied and annexed.

 

[EasternTiger]

While we're still on the topic of Brittany, how about adding Gallo culture in Brittany to distinguish the difference between Breton-speaking Lower Brittany and Gallo-speaking Upper Brittany? Nantes and Rennes are shown in the game as Breton speakers, which is not accurate. I would make the Nantais, Rennais and Armor provinces Gallo culture. Brittany would still be Breton primary culture with Gallo as an accepted culture. The provinces of Finistère and Vannetais would remain Breton. Of course, Gallo culture would be in the French culture group.

Spoiler: Linguistic Differences between Upper and Lower Brittany

Upper Brittany (Haute Bretagne) is comprised of the [EU4] provinces of Nantais, Rennais and Armor, as well as roughly half of Vannetais. While Côtes-d'Armor is not completely Gallo, the province of Armor in EU4 contains mostly the Gallo-speaking areas of Côtes-d'Armor.

Brittany in EU4

 

[Metroidkirby]

To be fair there were castles everywhere in medieval France.
But I agree that putting the castle in Rennes would, probably, force the AI to not mothball it and therefore not loosing it in a month on DoW.

 

[mechanical_Critter]

While we're still on the topic of Brittany, how about adding Gallo culture in Brittany to distinguish the difference between Breton-speaking Lower Brittany and Gallo-speaking Upper Brittany? Nantes and Rennes are shown in the game as Breton speakers, which is not accurate. I would make the Nantais, Rennais and Armor provinces Gallo culture. Brittany would still be Breton primary culture with Gallo as an accepted culture. The provinces of Finistère and Vannetais would remain Breton. Of course, Gallo culture would be in the French culture group.

Spoiler: Linguistic Differences between Upper and Lower Brittany

Upper Brittany (Haute Bretagne) is comprised of the [EU4] provinces of Nantais, Rennais and Armor, as well as roughly half of Vannetais. While Côtes-d'Armor is not completely Gallo, the province of Armor in EU4 contains mostly the Gallo-speaking areas of Côtes-d'Armor.

Brittany in EU4

Really dislike that one. Once again, *culture* map is about *culture*, not *language*. There's sufficient homogeneity in the Breton culture to pack it together as a single culture group AND 2 provinces culture should be avoided. All this lines up to keep the group as is (besides there are more adequate contenders for france culture group splits).

 

[Scorpene]

Seems a bit excessive to have level 2 forts in Nantais AND Rennais. I believe the level 1 already satsfies your goal of needing to get past Rennes in order to go further into Brittany, so Nantais should only have a level 1 if it's Brittany's capital. A fort in Maine is in retrospect unbalanced if France can just grab it immediately if England takes the option to DOW France for Surrender of Maine. Perhaps moving the fort from Poitiers to Bas-Poitou would better represent this, but again I would go with the city that was strategically important.

In short, the best solution is to move the fort from Finistere to Rennais to help Brittany better defend itself.

I agree with that. Though you should have an event (similar to the spanish one) that leads Britanny and France to merge through Marriage (and if failed, marriage between Britanny and Austria as it was historically debated, and if also failed, Britanny independence ofc).

Now i was wondering, im writing an event chain, from Richelieu to Colbert, that involves a more naval France. What would have been the reactions in Europe except the hostilities of Spain, UK and Netherland? What could we have expected? Im trying to start that chain with Jean de Vienne++ and pursue it till Borda-Sané or Maurrepas.

 

[MiniaAr]

Hostilities of Spain and the UK, alright, but I'm not so sure about the hostilities of the Netherlands.

After the 80Y war, France and the Dutch Republic were allied, and it was only after the Dutch refused Louis' XIV land grab in the Spanish Netherlands during the war of Devolution that France turned on the Netherlands.
A more naval oriented France might not want to go for territorial expansion in the Low countries, or at least a much smaller one that would not threaten the Dutch Republic. France and the Netherlands could thus remain allied, and be more than enough to face the British Navy on the seas and win. Colonially, there are no a lot of potential conflicts, as the Dutch were in this for the trade before all, not the lands. In North America and India, both could co-operate to thwart the British, and in South America and Africa, they could again co-operate to grab lands from the Spaniards/Portuguese.

There could be such a timeline, which also prevents William of Orange coming on the British throne (without a Franco-Dutch war, no Dutch-British union). For the Dutch, the advantages are great, because a French alliance protects them from almost everything on the land-side. And on the navy side, they're the best ally to keep the British at bay. And this could also secure a good trade relationship between France and the Netherlands, provided Colbert isn't pissed off.

 

[Grandur]

With the idea of more tree mission for everyone, maybe for the french vassal (or appanages if they implement the governement), I think that generic mission for the french vassal could be a good idea ! So i try something, sorry if it's a little ugly, but here it is !

In fact the first tree is for the county of foix (with the province of Foix, Bigorre and Béarn I hope !), the last is the generical european, and the two other are for generical french vassal. In fact the first is for the independant violent vassal, and the second for a calm, and not ambitious vassal, if France is too overpowered and you can't escape its domination.
For the details, these are the description, short and the reward aren't quantified, i'm not good enought to put balanced reward.

The independance path :
Ensure the french protection
Have +150 relation with france
Reward : Bonus for improving relation
Description : Because the best way to betray someone is to flatter him, and they a dagger in the back !

Trustworthy futur allies
Have two countries supporting your independence
Reward : Bonus in diplomatic relation and +1 diplomatic relation slot
Description : But you also need strong allies, we can only advise that you talk to this king Austrian and English men !

Last step for liberty
Be independent
Reward :Administrative efficiency bonus and less aggressive expension for X year
Description : And that you want ! Finally independant, with powerful allies ! But are you going to stop there ? It will not be enough for a person with your amibition, will it ?

Return the domination
Conquer 3 states
Reward :Less unrest and more prestige
Description : The more powerful we are, the less dangerous our foes will be. They are ennemies for now, but maybe soon.. Futurs victims ?

The true leader of France
Own core Paris
Reward : + X diplomatic slot, aggressive expension reduce for vassalization for X year
Description : And that's it ! The ancient kingdom of France is no more ! Now you, with your leadership, can lead a new realm, a better France, with you at its head !

The good vassal path :
Our duty to the king
Have a military of 110% of your force limit
Reward : Bonus of moral and discipline for X years
Explanation : The fact is that the king need troops, and you have troops. But troops isn't enough, he need more troops, even if it means that you will have depts. The king is above that kind of thoughts

Solidify the economy
Gain +1,5 ducat a month
Reward : Bonus for relation with france
Explanation : The king is pleased, the more tax you raise, the more tax he will impose you. So continue to be a rich leader, he will be even more rich himself.

Bastion of nobility
Have at least two castle lvl 2
Reward : +X ducat per month, nobility is 10% happier for X year
Explanation : The king is a thing, but the nobility is another. And when you have to fear one of them, the more obvious idea is not the right sometime. So manage your spending in the right place, would you ?

Build manufactory
The standard mission but reduce at 10 manufactories
Explanation : The king needs troops, taxes, but also manufactures ! After all, he will not fabricate his goods himself !

The missions for the county of Foix :
Get the coast back !
Own core any coastal province
Reward : Gain trade bonus and ship construction bonus

Reclaim the Navarran throne
Own core Navarra
Reward : Increase prestige, gain claim on Vasconia region

The Estates of foix

The nobility, clergy and bourgeoisie gain +10% influence
Reward : Reduce power cost for X years

Master of the Gulf of Gascogny

Have the dominant trade power in the Bordeaux trade nod
Reward : More trade bonus I guess ?

Ancient Rivalery ending

Own core the province of Toulouse. Toulouse (the country) must not exist
Reward : Bonus Prestige and legitimacy per year

Reform the kingdom of Aquitaine

Own core the region of Gascogny, Guyenne, Massif Central et Languedoc
Reward : Big bonus of Prestige and Legitimacy, unlock the decision of forming the Kingdom of Aquitaine


I hope that you will find them good ! And sorry again if you find some (or many) spelling mistakes !