How will the hundred years war look like alliance wise

[Lord Prime]

I am just thinking. Will the scenario start with alliance between England and Burgundy against France and the rest of the smaller states or will all the countries be free. Also i wonder why they implented Aquitania and Orleans, i thought Orleans was under the king of frances control at the begining of the 15th century.

 

[Agelastus]

Aquitania and Orleanais are bothering me too.......but then I think they're going overboard on this whole "France wasn't yet France" thing-I'm beginning to doubt EU2 will be sufficiently complex to accurately portray the situation at that time.

It should really just be England and Burgundy against France.....although there is a minor argument for including Castile in France's alliance, although possibly not at war with England, even at this late a stage.

 

[unmerged(2826)]

maybe Orleanais French vassal and Aquitania English one

 

[Lord Prime]

Well we can just hope for the best i guess.

 

[unmerged(3627)]

In january 1419, England and Burgundy were not yet allied, but about to be. That might simply be represented as having strong relations, so that they are likely to form an alliance.

Just about all of the French area outside Paris was technically in vassalisation to France, but most of it didn't even pay lip service to the idea and just went their own way - the most spectacular example being Burgundy itself, which was nominally French-owned but joined an alliance at war with them.

 

[Lord Prime]

I hope Burgundy and England wont ally for france sake in EU II.

 

[Blade!]

Uh, why not... I am sure Paradox Beta Testers will beable to balance out a combined Burgundy/England with a smaller France.... high civil disorder rates.... bad generals...events... poor economics, etc.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Heyesey
Just about all of the French area outside Paris was technically in vassalisation to France, but most of it didn't even pay lip service to the idea and just went their own way - the most spectacular example being Burgundy itself, which was nominally French-owned but joined an alliance at war with them.

Only portions of Burgundy were French owned, then or later. Burgundy's situation was somewhat unique because of the close (family) blood tie shared by the French Royal family and the Ducal house.

An original-EU style vassalisation is still far too close to independence to accurately model the French situation at the time. Which I think I've said in other places (the subject of Brittany in the IGC threads, for example.)

On the other hand the same thing could be said about the minor states of the HRE up to the late sixteenth century (officially up to 1648.)

 

[Lord Prime]

Burgundy had close ties to the Habsburg family aswell, why would it othervise became their possesions after Charles the Bold death.

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Lord Prime
Burgundy had close ties to the Habsburg family aswell, why would it othervise became their possesions after Charles the Bold death.

Because the daughter of Charles the Bold married the Habsburg Emperor Maximilian.

 

[Lord Prime]

Originally posted by Dark Knight

Because the daughter of Charles the Bold married the Habsburg Emperor Maximilian.

I know that, what i mean is that they should have good relations in the game to make a chance for this historical annexation to happen. BTW i wonder why it is spain that starts with the netherlands in GC, shouldnt it be Austria? And could it not be an event that when Charles V becomes emperor of HRE that Spain would have a percentage chance to become a vassal of Austria if it is controlled by AI. Would be a cool thing i think. I have seen the reverse, spain annexing Austria diplo. But never vice versa.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Lord Prime
BTW i wonder why it is spain that starts with the netherlands in GC, shouldnt it be Austria?

The game couldn't handle the subsequent partition of the Habsburg territories between the Spanish and Austrian branches, so Paradox fudged the issue. I prefer using one of the Austrian Netherlands options in the IGC myself.

 

[unmerged(4868)]

what's to prevent the Hundred Years War from being ended after..... oh.... say..... only 8 years of warfare?

Answer: nothing.

There will be no Hundred Years War

 

[Blade!]

Maybe after some time the 'french' parties will have some great incentive to merge?

 

[Vulture]

All I can tell on this issue is that sure as hell IS chaotic ingame

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Suleyman
what's to prevent the Hundred Years War from being ended after..... oh.... say..... only 8 years of warfare?

Answer: nothing.

There will be no Hundred Years War

Suleyman
The Hundred Years War began in 1337-the game begins in 1419.

Add your, say, eight years.......well is the "Ninety Years War" good enough for you? I think it has quite a nice ring to it.

 

[unmerged(5746)]

This just illustrates another point.. it's impossible to wage war for more then 10 years in EU as the war-exhastion is far too great. Which simply means that there can't be any 30-years war either... Why? well... because we'd probably have a revolt risk of about 30% in each province...

 

[unmerged(739)]

I also think that in certain circumstances war exhaustion should be lessened ie fighting a hated enemy (one that you have permanent Cb on and has less than 0 realtions with you) and war exhaustion should be halved witha temporary CB and normal exhaustion for a non-CB war.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by gustav2adolf
This just illustrates another point.. it's impossible to wage war for more then 10 years in EU as the war-exhastion is far too great. Which simply means that there can't be any 30-years war either... Why? well... because we'd probably have a revolt risk of about 30% in each province...

Have they said that war exhaustion will be handled differently in EU2-in EU it tops out at five in national provinces, ten in non-national provinces. Since it's unlikely that many states will control non-national provinces at the 1419 start of EU2, war exhaustion isn't going to be much of a problem. Peace treaty limitations if you don't want to annex someone are likely to be much more of a hindrance for a continuous war.

 

[unmerged(4868)]

Originally posted by gustav2adolf
This just illustrates another point.. it's impossible to wage war for more then 10 years in EU as the war-exhastion is far too great. Which simply means that there can't be any 30-years war either... Why? well... because we'd probably have a revolt risk of about 30% in each province...

Yes correct. Fast war exhaustion is a big reason why long wars of 30 years or 100 years is simply not likely in this game.

But another factor for short wars... hmm I blame it on AI stupidity. I have played games where as the leader of the alliance my empire was completely winning the war and decisively kicking enemy butt. But then suddenly, just only a couple of years into the war, all my allies start suing for white peace even tho they have captured enemy provinces.

So I find myself suddenly asking "My alliance was totally winning this war and we were in a position to capture a huge amount of provinces from the enemy coalition. Why the hell did my allies suddenly all sue for peace so quickly?"


The lesson here is that long drawn-out alliance wars absolutely REQUIRE strong cooperation between allied nations. Otherwise, the war effort (and the alliance itself) will simply crumble. The fact of the matter is, the AI nations just are not smart enough to understand this.