Lancaster & York

[Assos]

Who can forget them and the Roundheads!

 

[unmerged(37697)]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Dont forget the Royalists :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Indeed! I'm not sure about ROY and PUR, not least because they're hitherto lacking avatars, but also because I don't know how EUIII will model civil wars. Still, I suppose if one were to load up the game at some point during the Civil War, it may be possible to play as the Royalists or the Puritans. Still, as I say, depends how Johan & co. choose to model this sort of thing...

Personally, I don't think countries should be physically split during Civil Wars, unless of course we're talking about situations in which nations historically did split into two or more nations, the Timurids being a good example.

In the case of the WotR (and the English Civil War, come to mention it), it would be a pretty bad idea to do this, and I don't think Paradox would do it anyway. England wasn't physically split in this way, and nobles (who represented the various shires & counties, etc.) changed allegiance all the time.

Still, the tags should definitely be there so we can do it anyway

PS: I'd love to see ROY and PUR avatars anyway!!!

 

[Rotten Venetic]

Royalists, Puritans, English Catholics and English Calvinists. Also the Republicans.

Indeed none should be forgotten even if they're fictional or were always weak.

 

[Kevyinus]

(...) Love the flags too!

I do too .

 

[unmerged(37697)]

I've always seen 1455 as the start date and most sources, but not Wikipedia, list 1487 as their end date.

Clicky.

But, if Paradox sees 1453 as the start date, we could have to choose one house over the other.

You're right about the timeframe, of course. My mistake when rushing the first post - apologies

There are of course many definitions of the Wars of the Roses, and most revisionist historians choose to avoid the term anyway, as it is Victorian label and is generally associated with Tudor propoganda.

The wars are generally split into two series' of conflicts:

1455 to 1471, between the Houses of Lancaster and York
&
1471 to 1487, between the Houses of York and Tudor

I wouldn't expect EUIII to model the sheer number of complex event chains required to recreate the WotR, as I believe EUIII is all about giving more freedom to the player to do as he or she wants with their nation and creating a new history for it.

I disagree with your proposal to actually be able to choose which House to play as at gamestart, as that would mean ahistorically splitting the country into physical blocks to fight each other.

The best course of action would be to make use of the generic context-specific event system in order to model certain aspects (ie, civil war, interaction with France, usurpation of monarch(s), etc.), combined with a few important flavour events if at all possible. No doubt the first sort of historical mod (I'm sure the AGCEEP team will have a stab at something here) will convert many of their events to EUIII

With regards to using the tags of LAN and YOR (and to a lesser degree, NOL), this would be done best by representing the fact that the House of York perhaps has their seat of government in York, which is a largely Yorkist area anyway, and refuses outright to achknowledge Lancastrian rule. So they could physically secede from England to create the duchy of York or something.

Not at all historical of course, but could make for a rather interesting game.

I'm sure Johan has something up his sleeve for us anyway

 

[unmerged(10426)]

How do you think they will be modeled in EUIII?

All I'm interested in is the possiblity of a rampaging Northumbrian gigakingdom. York and Lancaster are the stuff of southern nancydom.

 

[Fiftypence]

I would love to be able to play as Lancaster with a proper Lancastrian flag and all.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

I would love to be able to play as Lancaster with a proper Lancastrian flag and all.

Which flag(s) do you speak of, sir?

York and Lancaster are the stuff of southern nancydom.

:rofl: Southern? They're both up north for a start

 

[Rotten Venetic]

Yep; I don't think there's enough space in N. England for Lancaster, York, Northumberland, Mercia and scottish expansion... or rather expansion by Strathclyde and K. of Alba, of course

Paradoxically, there's more space in southern England even though we have all sorts of mayhem there as well (I. of Man, Gwynedd, Dyfedd, Kent, Wessex etc.)

...I'm already dreaming up a scenario where the big nations are all split into every conceivable faction

 

[Lambert Simnel]

With regards to using the tags of LAN and YOR (and to a lesser degree, NOL), this would be done best by representing the fact that the House of York perhaps has their seat of government in York, which is a largely Yorkist area anyway, and refuses outright to achknowledge Lancastrian rule

This is not true. York like all of Northern England was Lancastrian in sympathies during the early war. York was the Lancastrian headquaters in 1460 and 1470 and in 1471 the city only allowed Edward IV in when he swore an oath of loyalty to Henry VI.

Later York like much of the North transferred its loyalties to Richard of Gloucester (later to become Richard III) due to his marrying a Northern heiress and his good governance that he gave the Northern lands he had been granted by Edward IV.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

This is not true. York like all of Northern England was Lancastrian in sympathies during the early war. York was the Lancastrian headquaters in 1460 and 1470 and in 1471 the city only allowed Edward IV in when he swore an oath of loyalty to Henry VI.

Later York like much of the North transferred its loyalties to Richard of Gloucester (later to become Richard III) due to his marrying a Northern heiress and his good governance that he gave the Northern lands he had been granted by Edward IV.

I am aware of all this, Mr. Simnel!

My comments (unless otherwise stated so) are in gameplay terms

Yep; I don't think there's enough space in N. England for Lancaster, York, Northumberland, Mercia and scottish expansion... or rather expansion by Strathclyde and K. of Alba, of course

Paradoxically, there's more space in southern England even though we have all sorts of mayhem there as well (I. of Man, Gwynedd, Dyfedd, Kent, Wessex etc.)

...I'm already dreaming up a scenario where the big nations are all split into every conceivable faction

Is Mercia a tag?

And I don't think it'll be a problem. Assuming Lancaster and York do co-exist in one of your games, one may rule entirely different areas than the other. Nobles had patches of land all over the place, certainly outside the places we associate with the Houses of Lancaster & York.

My dream is that when we create a vassal, we can choose which provinces to allocate to it, so when I'm king of England I can set up the duchy of Lancaster in northern France for my barons to rule on my behalf, or even better: set up the duchy of York on the eastern sea board; a nice viceroy is thus in place to help me secure North America

Of course this is just for creating vassals. When it comes to revolter nations, LAN and YOR (and any other tags) would still revolt in their historical locations...

 

[Rotten Venetic]

I am aware of all this, Mr. Simnel!

My comments (unless otherwise stated so) are in gameplay terms



Is Mercia a tag?

No but we can make one

And I don't think it'll be a problem. Assuming Lancaster and York do co-exist in one of your games, one may rule entirely different areas than the other. Nobles had patches of land all over the place, certainly outside the places we associate with the Houses of Lancaster & York.

You're right and I know. I even know who made sure of that in England (William the Conqueror/Bastard)

My dream is that when we create a vassal, we can choose which provinces to allocate to it, so when I'm king of England I can set up the duchy of Lancaster in northern France for my barons to rule on my behalf, or even better: set up the duchy of York on the eastern sea board; a nice viceroy is thus in place to help me secure North America

Of course this is just for creating vassals. When it comes to revolter nations, LAN and YOR (and any other tags) would still revolt in their historical locations...

Hmm. There was a thread about that and it seems we won't get to place vassals wherever we want unless we use a lot of tags to create vassals with all manners of province combinations.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

No but we can make one

We sure can

Hmm. There was a thread about that and it seems we won't get to place vassals wherever we want unless we use a lot of tags to create vassals with all manners of province combinations.

That's a shame; I was hoping this system would be a little more dynamic. Still, we have infinite tags so I can't see things being too difficult

I just love the idea of breaking down my nation into CK-style feudal entities should I want to. Mind you, that could get complex

As long as we can buy or trade land, though. I think that's an important request. I should be able to purchase a province (particularly if it's a core) from a nation for a shed load of gold, and maybe some troops/equipment. This was done from time to time, particularly between England, France & Burgundy I believe.

 

[Rotten Venetic]

...when they were not at war? I know that there were diplomatical deals in Sengoku Jidai Japan; Tokugawa Ieyasu (originally a Matsudaira; he changed names a lot) agreed to relinquish his territories (Mikawa, Suruga, Totomi, most of Shinano and Kai) to his former enemy Toyotomi Hideyoshi for the whole Kanto region, which was at the time being conquered from the Hojo and not even under the control of Hideyoshi yet!

One could say that Hideyoshi bought Tokugawa's five provinces, close to Oda-homeland Owari and the imperial see in Yamashiro, for the richer but more distant Kanto region.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

...when they were not at war?

Naturally

The duke of Burgundy sold a load of Somme towns to Louis XI if memory serves. I'm reading Edward IV by Charles Ross at the moment; it's in there in a section about Anglo-Franco-Burgundian diplomacy during the 1460s and 70s.

I just hope we get proper CoAs for YOR and LAN, not those bloody roses :rofl:

 

[Rotten Venetic]

This would be a yorkist shield. Can't find one for lancaster though...

So it looks like we will be having those bloody roses :rofl:

Edit: Wait!

Lancaster!

 

[unmerged(37697)]

No! lol roses are EVIL!!!! :rofl:

John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster:

Edmund of Langley, Duke of York:

That's what we want

 

[Rotten Venetic]

Hmm. They're almost identical - well not at this size where the diffrence is clear, but if you resize them to fit EUIII it becomes hard to tell them apart (from them and from England as well).

 

[unmerged(37697)]

Hmm. They're almost identical - well not at this size where the diffrence is clear, but if you resize them to fit EUIII it becomes hard to tell them apart (from them and from England as well).

Nahhh... it'd be alreet in game 'cus they could perhaps be emphasised a bit. However, I suspect we're stuck with the infamous roses anyway

EDIT: Incase you're interested, here's the LAN shield from the 1.09 patch...




(click the thumbnails to enlarge...)

 

[Petrarca]

Didn't York have three suns on its later badges, after Edward became head of house, called 'sun in splendour' or somesuch?

And let's discourage any placement of a Yorkist rebel in the north; it may make superficial sense from the name but gameplay can mirror history rather well.