-
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.
first time this ever happened to me.
with the initial conquests by ENG over FRA, 2 provinces, niversais and champagne go to BUR, a bit later ENG gain Ile of France....this is normal for me, but lately , the ile has be going to DAU, who shortly after convert to FRA.
The issue I have is that the new FRA (1422) gets overrun by all its neighbours as its only ally is foix.
I recommend that DAU do not convert to FRA until 1428, alliances will remain intact and DAU will cope better with the wars against BUR, ENG and whoever.
Logically, the HYW would not end once DAU becomes FRA and or takes Ile de france. But this seems to happen with an early creation of FRA.
with the initial conquests by ENG over FRA, 2 provinces, niversais and champagne go to BUR, a bit later ENG gain Ile of France....this is normal for me, but lately , the ile has be going to DAU, who shortly after convert to FRA.
The issue I have is that the new FRA (1422) gets overrun by all its neighbours as its only ally is foix.
I recommend that DAU do not convert to FRA until 1428, alliances will remain intact and DAU will cope better with the wars against BUR, ENG and whoever.
Logically, the HYW would not end once DAU becomes FRA and or takes Ile de france. But this seems to happen with an early creation of FRA.
Garbon said:
It would be illogical that all events for DAU involving the HYW cease, because DAU becomes FRA.
I am just saying, would ENG and/or BUR have not pursued there goals over DAU because DAU became FRA ??
It seems like perhaps France should get some of those events then.
The only other thing I can think of is that perhaps the rest of Europe wouldn't recognize the Dauphine of the rightful ruler of France, but that strikes me as unlikely...once he is in Paris.
The only other thing I can think of is that perhaps the rest of Europe wouldn't recognize the Dauphine of the rightful ruler of France, but that strikes me as unlikely...once he is in Paris.
Also now that I look closer, it looks like Dauphine only becomes France in 1422, if the negotiations go ahistorically and Burgundy/England decided to let the Dauphin inherit his father. Why would they keep fighting then?
Garbon said:
What your implying too then is that if the scenario happens as you state, then FRA should not pursue the "held" lands of Gascon, normandy, caux, picardie and calais to ENG and Champagne and Niversais to BUR. This would seem illogical for FRA to accept these conditions even though ENG and BUR recognise the dauphine as the french King.
AND since Champagne (reims) is historically the birthplace of FRA how can the DAU accept becoming FRA without Reims ?
Toio said:
Take it up with the way the events were written. All I know is that what you are taking issue with can't really be occurring frequently as it is dependent on ahistoric choices.
Also France should later go after those provinces, just not initially.
Toio said:
Kings in France weren't always crowned there. I think if Charles had a large enough set of territories and had Paris, he could declare himself king without Rheims.
I have to disagree with Toio. If ENG and BUR recognise the Dauphin, I don't see why they couldn't keep their holdings in France but this doesn't prevent the king of France from willing to "recover" them. And we have cores for this.
About Reims, we could say Crowning could still happen there, even if France doesn't own the province (control is sufficient in historical path and Champagne could be owned by "friends"). Or Notre Dame de Paris could take the role this time as an exception (and result of an already ahistorical choice anyway).
About Reims, we could say Crowning could still happen there, even if France doesn't own the province (control is sufficient in historical path and Champagne could be owned by "friends"). Or Notre Dame de Paris could take the role this time as an exception (and result of an already ahistorical choice anyway).
IMO, Reims should be controlled (or owned, but controlled is suffice) by DAU or BUR (once aligned with DAU) in order for DAU to become FRA.
with this event below
I get option B taken in about 4 of every 5 games, does anyone get this?
I also recommend that a badboy of 2 is far too steep and should be a badboy of 1,
thoughts?
Code:
#(1419) On the bridge of Montereau
event = {
id = 361002
trigger = { exists = BUR }
random = no
country = DAU
name = "EVENTNAME361002" #On the bridge of Montereau
desc = "EVENTHIST361002"
#-#Under John the Fearless, Burgundy had become the most powerful vassal of France, and acted increasingly more independent with respect to the Crown. Charles VI's madness had faciliated a civil war within the ranks of the nobility in France. The Burgundians and the Armagnacs had jockeyed for control of Charles VI and both had periodically exchanged positions of strength. John had murdered Louis Duke of Orleans, in the streets of Paris and years later, had massacred many Armagnacs in Paris when he had entered the city in 1418. Those who survived had fled to the side of the Dauphin, Charles. Hesitating between a final alliance with Henry V and a reconciliation with the Dauphin Charles, the Duke agreed to meet Charles in Montereau. Tempers flared during the meeting, and John and his retainers were cut to pieces. The alternative was to face humiliating concessions...
date = { day = 10 month = september year = 1419 }
action_a = {
name = "ACTIONNAME361002A" #Commit the Murder!
command = { type = stability value = 2 }
command = { type = trigger which = 137015 } #BUR: The Assassination of John the Fearless
command = { type = relation which = BUR value = -200 }
command = { type = domestic which = centralization value = 1 }
command = { type = badboy value = 2 }
}
action_b = {
name = "ACTIONNAME361002B" #Let us make concessions to ensure us the throne
command = { type = stability value = -6 }
command = { type = secedeprovince which = BUR value = 376 } #Champagne
command = { type = secedeprovince which = BUR value = 383 } #Picardie
command = { type = secedeprovince which = BUR value = 386 } #Nivernais
command = { type = alliance which = BUR }
command = { type = revolt which = 410 } #Berri
command = { type = revolt which = 423 } #Guyenne
command = { type = revoltrisk which = 240 value = 5 }
command = { type = domestic which = centralization value = -3 }
command = { type = domestic which = aristocracy value = 3 }
command = { type = relation which = BUR value = 200 }
command = { type = relation which = PRO value = -100 }
command = { type = sleepevent which = 170306 } #FRA: Negotiations at Arras
command = { type = trigger which = 137051 } #BUR: The Alliance of Montereau
}
}I get option B taken in about 4 of every 5 games, does anyone get this?
I also recommend that a badboy of 2 is far too steep and should be a badboy of 1,
thoughts?
No, I haven't. Frozen Random Number Genarator... or bad luck?
About badboy, does it make a real difference between 2 and 1?
About badboy, does it make a real difference between 2 and 1?
depends if an "anal" player such as myself when it comes to things as considering and planing maximum expansion possible within a resonable badboy, at ALL times
and that since the bb limit is well tied to the ai behaviour overall on "very hard" settings at least.so for me , even 0.1(25) bb (inheritance) is taken in consideration; if it would not be for a somehow increased diplomatic skills alteration via better random events, every game would likelly be the same here...sort of speak.( as if playing with the same nation more the twice and post 1500's, and that regardless of dp settings wich become more of a "flavour" only post 1600's).
the above is with regards towards sp play only.
Last edited:
it will mean 3 years less time on BB, it could also make a difference on the choice by the AI for options a or b
BTW, why was not relation hits put in instead of BB ?
Any game reason why AGCEEP did not start the 1419GC HYW as historical, meaning that Normandy and Caen where already secured by a peace with"old" FRA in 1416 annd 1417 respectively.
Normandy was not secured until January 19th/20th of 1419 with the fall of Rouen.
Maybe classed as normandy then, but really on our map it sits on the borders of caen and picardie.
Waiting for 1 last city to fall when the rest of normandy and caen (on our map) was secured is a bit steep
Doesn't secured mean controlled?
I always thought Normandy and Caux controlled by England at start was in order to represent this situation.
I always thought Normandy and Caux controlled by England at start was in order to represent this situation.