France and the Age of Explorations

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
Especially since I am redoing the Persian situation completely for 1.05. Version 1.00 was done in a hurry, and Persia was basically constructed out of the Persian cultured provinces, which is a very strange shape for Persia to be.

This leads to interesting situations, such as a remnant Ak Koyunlu that is almost certain to be swallowed by the Ottomans - in other words, Persia will likely never control Azerbaijan (where Ismaîls conquests started, and which remained an important Persian province for a long, long time) or Daghestan, Armenia &etc which were some of the earliest conquests and which they held on to for a subtantial length of time. So now I am changing the situation radically and starting them with the initial conquests (basically absorbing Ak Koyunlu), and letting them lose some of the eastern territory which they conquered later to the Uzbeks, Timurids, and Baluchistan. Their halfway trade investment is wiped, it being no longer so necessary, what with their somewhat greater income and the change of techgroup modifiers. Arabic culture is a gone as well, but they get the cultures that were easily tolerated in the Persian empire instead: Kurdish and Baluchi.

They really ought to get Turkish for Azerbaijan and (to a lesser degree) Daghestan as well, and it would certainly make rivalry with the Ottomans more interesting, but would that be overdoing it? It would probably be easier to change Azerbaijan to Persian culture, but that feels very wrong, for some reason

Well, Persia having Armenian goldmine and bunch of wealthy Arabic provinces is bound not to be looked upon kindly on by Ottomans

Turkish culture is not that important in MP, actually-there is not big chance Persia will ever get hold on much of Anatolia, if any at all.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Well, i just realized how to give Spain incentive to fight Dutch revolts. Give Spain dutch culture not until death of Carlos I, but until Dutch independence events! (that ones ceding provinces)

+1/2 RR doesn't matter much, and having culture should push player into fighting those revolts, at least somewhat...

(Peter, if you still don't want to change events, what about two versions of your mod?After all, only host need changed events)

 

[Mowers]

Originally posted by DarthMaur
Its real pity there is no Ottoman-Spanish tension at all, not even real incentive... also, the fact Spain has no reason not to fight Dutch is also sad (didn't Spain lose a lot of VP for early Dutch appearance in boardgame?)
Can't think of anyhing yet, sadly. Some CB overlap could be nice (like, on southern Italy), and giving Ottomans semi-permanent CB on Spain (like the one they have on Venice and Austria)... but thats not enough, and its not good either.

Some CB overlap would be ideal.

Both could have Naples and Tunis Shields.

There is historical basis for both of them and it would fit in the with orginal idea for Shields.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by DarthMaur
Well, Persia having Armenian goldmine and bunch of wealthy Arabic provinces is bound not to be looked upon kindly on by Ottomans

Yes, and this is a much better situation than the one where the Ottomans just overrun all of Anatolia in five or ten years without opposition rather than the 100+ years it took against the Persians.

Turkish culture is not that important in MP, actually-there is not big chance Persia will ever get hold on much of Anatolia, if any at all.

Well, I would certainly expect a Persian player to try to hold on to as much as possible - certainly Azerbaijan - though Armenia is likely to be lost in the first losing war.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen


Yes, and this is a much better situation than the one where the Ottomans just overrun all of Anatolia in five or ten years without opposition rather than the 100+ years it took against the Persians.


Well, I would certainly expect a Persian player to try to hold on to as much as possible - certainly Azerbaijan - though Armenia is likely to be lost in the first losing war.

What culture was EU Azerbeijan province IRL, anyway?

 

[unmerged(5206)]

Perhaps the Ottoman CBs on Daghestan and Azerbaijan could be exchanged for Kirkuk, Iraq, and Basra. Historically the Ottomans ruled over Iraq from their initial invasion of it in the 1530s, until the last days of the Ottoman breakup in WW1. As for Azerbaijan, they ruled it only briefly from 1725-1726 when Persia was in turmoil due to the Afghan invasions, and from 1583-1606.


By today's definition they're Turkic, but maybe things were different in 1492.

 

[RedPhoenix]

Originally posted by Mowers
I think we are reaching the boundries of how far we can take the game really, it needs to get alot more complicated to make some of the things that we want to implement. However, it remains the best game ever so I can live with any imperfections

I agree shields ought to be used for "very strong claims" only. I feel that at the moment there a lack of evidence that there was a very strong claim from France on the lowlands. Indeed the only evidence seems to be that the lowlands was not terribly important until later stages when the lowlands were primarily a battle ground to further other unrelated ambitions.

If you remove the french core shields, I think you should remove russian cores on lithuania/poland too, and any core that anyone gained after the start date of the scenario.

Sure france didn't gain full ownership of these provinces for a while, but they did eventually, and they did want them for a long time. Same applies to most all nations, so because russia succeeded better after the start of the game than france, they should get all the cores right? I don't see the logic sorry.

Removing these cores from france is extremely unfair for france, considering all the cores the other nations receive from events during the game, or what other nations have as cores in enemy territory at start. Either remove all that, or none, is what I say. Otherwise this whole argument loses its base completely. It's the big picture its about, not just france. Besides removing the cores doesn't weaken france basically at all, so that is no justification on doing this just for france.

And since editing the events isn't going to happen unless Johan tackles this whole issue, and doubtfully it ever will since it would have to be a MP only edition I guess then, since these cores are much needed for SP.

JUST LEAVE ALL CORES ALONE! )

 

[TheArchduke]

Originally posted by Mowers
Some CB overlap would be ideal.

Both could have Naples and Tunis Shields.

There is historical basis for both of them and it would fit in the with orginal idea for Shields.

Naples is already a battleground but Tunis would be an idea. Spain should have reasons to fight in North Africa like Charles I. did.

 

[unmerged(5206)]

I think you should remove russian cores on lithuania/poland too, and any core that anyone gained after the start date of the scenario.

They gain those through events later in the game, furthermore Russia conquered a huge chunk of Eastern Lithuania (including Smolensk) in the early 1500s. The Ottomans are the only state that get cores in one huge batch. Most other Great Powers of Europe gain their cores gradually.

 

[Mowers]

Originally posted by RedPhoenix


Removing these cores from france is extremely unfair for france, considering all the cores the other nations receive from events during the game, or what other nations have as cores in enemy territory at start. Either remove all that, or none, is what I say. Otherwise this whole argument loses its base completely. It's the big picture its about, not just france. Besides removing the cores doesn't weaken france basically at all, so that is no justification on doing this just for france.


JUST LEAVE ALL CORES ALONE! )

As maur said its a pandora's box.

But the purpose of this thread is to look at France's relative strength and degrad that. This is not a debate about cores in general. Sure the big picture is very important, but its almost impossible to look at the big picture due to its size. However, if you can fix just one thing, especially due to its magnitude, then really in the big picture it doesnt really matter. We all know that France is over powered in the early stages of the game and getting this right is important, so if we use cores does it really matter in the big picture? no. Removing the cores will hinder the intial power of france and it will have an effect.

If peter E creates a scenario that is technically superior than the existing one then I'll be using it regardless of whether it contains other existing "flaws". I'm tired of EU French Bid for mastery 1492-1700 and thus any improvement is good.

Removing all cores for the purposes of MP is an interesting thought. People would use the the CB diplomatic options more often.

 

[RedPhoenix]

Originally posted by Fate
They gain those through events later in the game, furthermore Russia conquered a huge chunk of Eastern Lithuania (including Smolensk) in the early 1500s. The Ottomans are the only state that get cores in one huge batch. Most other Great Powers of Europe gain their cores gradually.

my point was that france does not gain the cores later, and they should. Besides there seems to be talk of CB overlap, you remove this from france here this is not good, you need to promote conflict in the area, not remove it. there was conflict....

You want to weaken france, this isnt the way to do it. The idea the cores represent is not as simple as is put here. Because of the way the game was designed and the engine works, are foundations for these cores being here, if you remove them you shake the very foundation of the game. The cores are not only about 100% accurate historical claims or aquirances.

 

[RedPhoenix]

Originally posted by Mowers
As maur said its a pandora's box.

But the purpose of this thread is to look at France's relative strength and degrad that. This is not a debate about cores in general. Sure the big picture is very important, but its almost impossible to look at the big picture due to its size. However, if you can fix just one thing, especially due to its magnitude, then really in the big picture it doesnt really matter. We all know that France is over powered in the early stages of the game and getting this right is important, so if we use cores does it really matter in the big picture? no. Removing the cores will hinder the intial power of france and it will have an effect.

If peter E creates a scenario that is technically superior than the existing one then I'll be using it regardless of whether it contains other existing "flaws". I'm tired of EU French Bid for mastery 1492-1700 and thus any improvement is good.

Removing all cores for the purposes of MP is an interesting thought. People would use the the CB diplomatic options more often.

You only argue to remove the french bid for mastery, I fail to understand how removing these cores acomplishes that, I woulld suggest adding more cores to promote historical lines of interest. Sure cores matter some, but they do not matter for financial or military power at all for france, nor much for revolt risk anymore either. Their importance now is mainly to give CB, and 1.25xRR.

Creating the duchy of bourbon and maybe altering manpower/income/population, province ownerships at start of the scenario to reflect historical strenght and historical situation is the solution I favor here. Nerfing france isnt the only thing you can do here, you could strenghten its neighbours initial setup to make france relatively weaker sure, But yes france is overpowered, but my point is it is not overpowered because of 2-3 core shields...... This should be simple enough to understand.

I think adding cores for spain and OE in north africa is a good idea. They are in line with many other cores in the game. And most importantly here, would promote historical conflict, which is perhaps the mainreason for cores... which I think many here are forgetting.

 

[Mowers]

hi Red,

Alot of things could be done but it must be the historic one that we select. Shields are part of that. Its not the main part but it is. I believe, a historic part. I understand why the shield is there, but I think that the consequences create an ahistorical simulation. I am against changing other countries to effect France as I think this could have other knock on consequences.

Removal of Cores in the lowlands will effect France. It will mean that it has to pay a stability cost to attack Austria. Leave just one core and France can keep that CB by allowing Austria to keep that province which is unhistoric. I am all for adding these cores back later in the game via event as i believe this to be historic.

The removal of cores will finally force people to use the diplomatic options to get CB's. Its too easy to get a CB and thus we tend not to have very realistic wars alot of the time.

There will be plenty of reasons for France to expand, all the same ones as before. However, attacking the lowlands as the primary move will no longer be so ahistorically easy. We might even see historical wars in Italy *shock horror* (dont confuse that idea that I am now advocating straight jacketing history)

However, to acknowledge the confusion around this matter, I support the encouragement of Spain / Ottoman conflict. Its difficult to implement, cores is one way. However, the thread is about France and France alone.

 

[Twoflower]

Originally posted by RedPhoenix
my point was that france does not gain the cores later, and they should. Besides there seems to be talk of CB overlap, you remove this from france here this is not good, you need to promote conflict in the area, not remove it. there was conflict....

You want to weaken france, this isnt the way to do it. The idea the cores represent is not as simple as is put here. Because of the way the game was designed and the engine works, are foundations for these cores being here, if you remove them you shake the very foundation of the game. The cores are not only about 100% accurate historical claims or aquirances.

As pointed out several times now, Artois IS already added in the vanilla EU2 Chambers of Reunion.

 

[TheArchduke]

Originally posted by Mowers

However, to acknowledge the confusion around this matter, I support the encouragement of Spain / Ottoman conflict. Its difficult to implement, cores is one way. However, the thread is about France and France alone.

You mean that having no cb will force France to be a bit more cautious? Good idea probably. Artois can and should be removed, Lorraine must be also but at the moment there is no event for lorraine.

Maybe we should remove the cbs at all for MP?

 

[RedPhoenix]

Originally posted by TheArchduke
You mean that having no cb will force France to be a bit more cautious? Good idea probably. Artois can and should be removed, Lorraine must be also but at the moment there is no event for lorraine.

Maybe we should remove the cbs at all for MP?

Point about lorraine is, that it should be added as a core when france inherits it, since it isnt... well...

Point about franche comte, rousillon, even if these provinces are not french for some time, other nations that historically aquired certain lands by diplomacy or war, do gain those as cores later(or to begin with). Why do you want to make france an exception?

Also if you want a historically accurate simulation, why not let france keep a core shield on lowlands, but make lowlands SPANISH at the start, as they were in reality. Now this solves your lets beat on austria too easy syndrome. Plus as twoflower pointed out this makes austria much more to its historical strenght, and prevents austria keeping lowlands ahistorically.

Well in this setup it would make sense to take away austrian core shields on lowlands also, and on franche comte. Take away cores from France on artois and France comte(keep lorraine though unless it is added to the later event, well lorraine is sorta irrelevant here who cares about it.)

 

[unmerged(15967)]

If Spain gets the Netherlands and Franche Comté from the start I don't think any further changes have to be made. Spain with the Netherlands is slightly more than a match for France if both are equally well played, so that should stop any handover of provinces without a shot. And extensive wars between the two would be very historical anyway. We would only need to get the warmogers to play Spain just as often as France.

 

[RedPhoenix]

Originally posted by Freiherr vStein
If Spain gets the Netherlands and Franche Comté frim the start I don't think any further changes have to be made. Spain with the Netherlands is slightly more than a match for France if both are equally well played, so that should stop any handover of provinces without a shot. And extensive wars between the two would be very historical anyway. We would only need to get the warmogers to play Spain just as often as France.

Well even if you make lowlands(burgundy includes france comte) spanish, as I strongly think would be the best solution to the whole lowlands issue. Still creating duchy of bourbonnais as a vassal is a great thing.

(edit) I also think bearn to navarra, and bearn made capital is good.

These changes would make it just about perfect And I don't think anything further is needed.

 

[TheArchduke]

1556 should however still give the option of giving burgundy or the italian possesions to the austrian branch.

Also how to simulate that the Austrian branch got the important emperor´s crown in the divison.

 

[Twoflower]

Originally posted by TheArchduke
1556 should however still give the option of giving burgundy or the italian possesions to the austrian branch.

Why? None of these was given to Austria.

Also how to simulate that the Austrian branch got the important emperor´s crown in the divison.

There are two events that dramatically improve Austria's relations to the electors in 1548 and 1554 (IIRC). Therefore the 1556 election is almost certainly won by Austria.