-
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.
Check the query half a page above your question. Basically, if a Duchy is to be added, of which provinces should it consist &etc.
EDIT: And, Smirfy, be prepared to face the wrath of France, as I will invoke your name and dodge
. In the link thread, which Eochaid has put in the Francophone forum, he has noted: ....C'est très intéressant, mais j'ai remarqué quelques erreurs (notamment la France qui n'aurait aucune tradition maritime quelle qu'elle soit... )
Last edited:
Peter, perhaps the startdate for vassalage could be moved to 1517, so that Bourbon could be diplomatically annexed on its historic date.
1515 would be more suitable as that was when Bourbonnais lost most of its power as an independent entity.
I agree, 1515 sounds about like a good date.
About the cores though, I think removing artois is fine since they get that in the later event. But I think you shouldn't remove lorraine and france comte cores unless they will be edited in later or added to an event. Even at this time France had a beef to settle with Austria for having these lands, even if they didn't get them yet, it atleast gives them a CB on austria which they should have. And a claim on the land.
Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen
EDIT: And, Smirfy, be prepared to face the wrath of France, as I will invoke your name and dodge
They can come on in the same old way and I will send them back in the same old way
Good idea to send it to the French forums though I share the concerns of a stronger France coming back
I have not been able to find the exact relation between these lands and France in most cases they are called "fiefs" which in my dictionary "heritable land held by a vassal or an area of land which one has control or influence" so hopefully someone from the French forum can clear up these lands relationship with France.
Originally posted by Smirfy
They can come on in the same old way and I will send them back in the same old way
Good idea to send it to the French forums though I share the concerns of a stronger France coming back
I have not been able to find the exact relation between these lands and France in most cases they are called "fiefs" which in my dictionary "heritable land held by a vassal or an area of land which one has control or influence" so hopefully someone from the French forum can clear up these lands relationship with France.
I know why you are doing this but I wouldn't get too hung up about historical justification. Otherwise someone is going to point to the Spanish situation and argue that Aragon, Catalonia, Naples etc should be in the same situation.
If you want France weaker for game play just do it! BTW how did a thread about France being too weak because they chose the wrong sliders turn into a thread about France being too strong at the start of the game. Are we saying that to stop France from being weak later on we must make her weaker at the start?
My head hurts
Originally posted by Derek Pullem
I know why you are doing this but I wouldn't get too hung up about historical justification. Otherwise someone is going to point to the Spanish situation and argue that Aragon, Catalonia, Naples etc should be in the same situation.
If you want France weaker for game play just do it! BTW how did a thread about France being too weak because they chose the wrong sliders turn into a thread about France being too strong at the start of the game. Are we saying that to stop France from being weak later on we must make her weaker at the start?
My head hurts
Read peter's post at the start of the thread
Thanks but I did - it still boils down to making France weaker at the start because otherwise the players screw up the sliders if they are too strong and every game degenerates into a lets bash France fest.
So if we make France weaker the french players will play more cautiously and the game will be more fun?
And we'll try to find some historical justification for it?
Did I get it right?
I don't really buy this "cruel to be kind" approach for the French players - haven't they ever heard of Diplomacy
Well, more like France is too strong at the start and this causes many to be sucked into ruining her long-term, but I will agree that the cause and effect is not all that clear, since the thing that annoys me the most is the second part
Well, that and being handed territory without a fight in 1492-93 as is standard and behaving as if France in the fifteenth century was Napoleonic France. That is just plain wrong.
For some people the most annoying is the first part though: Smirfy is a good example of this school.
If we make France weaker initially in a way that does not prevent her from attaining greatness later, as I clearly specified.
Well, I do not care so much for historical justification (though other's do). We have Castile+Aragon united in Spain, Denmark+Norway united in Denmark, all of France save Britanny under the control of the French king, and any number of other interesting discrepancies, presumably to make early wildly ahistorical paths less likely and for game balance within the confines of the game engine.
Historical justification is all very well and good, but since it is not applied rigorously, it is not my prime concern: Gameplay is.
However, to make a solution more palatable and in the spirit of the game, it is preferable that changes have, if not historic justification, then historic semblance. Thus, if a duchy is added to France, I would prefer it to be the well known duchy of Pomme de Terre, which exploits are so very famous, and put it in approximately the right position, rather than an invented duchy My FantasyLand.
Well, more or less. Different people have different agendas. Compared to my objective, the answer is less. Compared to some of the other respondents', the answer is more.
It is not a "cruel to be kind", approach. It is a "France was not of Napoleonic strength in 1492, you silly bugger, so return that little Corsican to your pocket for quite some time" approach
.
Actually, i have no idea why they want to make France weaker. I personally think France is already weaker than Habsburgs.
Hi peter, i'm very interested in what you are writing about AOE scenario cause i find this scenario the most interesting but with a lot of work to do to better it as no eep or agc is working on it.
I'm agree with you france is really overpowered, but it seems to me that near to every european major is (at least spain, austria, france and sweden are).
Historically france was still splitted in a lot of vassal coutries in 1492. I've an interesting map that shows as vassal: alencon (annexed 1525), perche (1525), dunois (1589), blois (1498), valois (1515), angouleme (1515), la marche (1527), bourbon (1527), auvergne (1627), forez (1531), limoges and perigord (1589) armagnac, bearn and cominges. A lot of land owned by important nobles which where mostly deep involved with kings politics but still able to make their quasi indipendent politic and much more important with huge land possesion it this province that join under kingdoms control only when this nobles became kings. Possession of lands let me choose to join your opinion, france should have much more vassals in AOE all allied with king and with high diplo frienship, but still indipendent, to simulate this situation of fewer incomes from this province.
But other countries should go in this direction. I have readen really a lot about austria in this times. Well maximilian had big ambitions, but he was ruling directly only on austrian province and never has enough incomes to raise a decent army in these years. He ever asked money to his ally to join them in a war and behaved much more like a mercenary then a king. Mi proposal is to divide burgundy from austria as burgundy was near to indipendent from austria on the basis of an agreement between burgundian cities and maximilian. Charles was son of giovanna and carlo il temerario (don't know on english) and he was the real ruler of burgundy with his own politics and his own incomes indipendent from maximilian ( maybe they should have RM alliance and good relations).
About spain they where going to work out unification between the 2 kingdoms (but this lands where ruled by one king and land possession was of one king only), but they came out from a 100 years war against muslim for the reconquista and for this reason with many loans outstanding. That's the reason cause isabella had to give her jewels to finance columbus enterprise. It would be right to have many loans outstanding for them at the beginn of the war.
Last major england. I'm reading a book about henry V by now. There is written that his father let him 1.000.000 pounds in tresury... never played as england at the beginn so i don't know if in game england has a right start basis. One more thing about england. Ireland should be divided in 4 different countries at the beginnig and only 1 prov to england (dublin) this is historical situation.
I'm agree with you france is really overpowered, but it seems to me that near to every european major is (at least spain, austria, france and sweden are).
Historically france was still splitted in a lot of vassal coutries in 1492. I've an interesting map that shows as vassal: alencon (annexed 1525), perche (1525), dunois (1589), blois (1498), valois (1515), angouleme (1515), la marche (1527), bourbon (1527), auvergne (1627), forez (1531), limoges and perigord (1589) armagnac, bearn and cominges. A lot of land owned by important nobles which where mostly deep involved with kings politics but still able to make their quasi indipendent politic and much more important with huge land possesion it this province that join under kingdoms control only when this nobles became kings. Possession of lands let me choose to join your opinion, france should have much more vassals in AOE all allied with king and with high diplo frienship, but still indipendent, to simulate this situation of fewer incomes from this province.
But other countries should go in this direction. I have readen really a lot about austria in this times. Well maximilian had big ambitions, but he was ruling directly only on austrian province and never has enough incomes to raise a decent army in these years. He ever asked money to his ally to join them in a war and behaved much more like a mercenary then a king. Mi proposal is to divide burgundy from austria as burgundy was near to indipendent from austria on the basis of an agreement between burgundian cities and maximilian. Charles was son of giovanna and carlo il temerario (don't know on english) and he was the real ruler of burgundy with his own politics and his own incomes indipendent from maximilian ( maybe they should have RM alliance and good relations).
About spain they where going to work out unification between the 2 kingdoms (but this lands where ruled by one king and land possession was of one king only), but they came out from a 100 years war against muslim for the reconquista and for this reason with many loans outstanding. That's the reason cause isabella had to give her jewels to finance columbus enterprise. It would be right to have many loans outstanding for them at the beginn of the war.
Last major england. I'm reading a book about henry V by now. There is written that his father let him 1.000.000 pounds in tresury... never played as england at the beginn so i don't know if in game england has a right start basis. One more thing about england. Ireland should be divided in 4 different countries at the beginnig and only 1 prov to england (dublin) this is historical situation.
Excellent idea Peter. Perhaps give Spain three 200 ducat, 6% loans, for payoff in 1497, 1502, and 1507?
I agree, but it normally turns out the more skilled player is in France and the Habsburgs don't know better than to not fight.
I can't see that its necesary to make France weaker because players can't seem to play France the right way.
Isn't more an issue to get the player playing France do something different...?
Isn't more an issue to get the player playing France do something different...?
Right, but if its the case, does it mean game (not player) setting should be changed?Originally posted by Prince Eugene
I agree, but it normally turns out the more skilled player is in France and the Habsburgs don't know better than to not fight.
Next time i'm playing Spain
(and i have to honestly protest about my French reign beign not right!
)
would these changes really make france that much weaker? i don't think they would however france would have more to do. right now france really doesn't have much to do except warmonger in the early part of the game.
? How so? It can conduct diplomacy (well, Savoy and later Genoa and Lorraine plus Strassburg are obvious targets, perhaps alliance with Helvetia), and work on its quite pathetic tech, spend money on nice refineries... peaceful France can get very strong.
Peter, hope you are adding all sorts of permanent casus bellis to portugal too for the next scenario, along the lines spain has
Any reason I should add such casus beliis to Portugal rather than remove them from Spain?Originally posted by RedPhoenix
Peter, hope you are adding all sorts of permanent casus bellis to portugal too for the next scenario, along the lines spain has