Lancaster & York

[unmerged(37697)]

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

Yes, I think you're right, but I do so love Duke Edmund's Coat of Arms

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.

Indeed. As I said earlier, I'd like it if one could allocate provinces to vassals so I could make an external Yorkist duchy or viceroy or something in France or America. Still, I don't mind. So long as I can play with them I'm happy

If memory serves, not all of EUII's revolters actually had monarch or leader files. I really hope this isn't the case in EUIII. I'd be happy to do some of them myself, so long as they actually get into the game.

I also REALLY hope that monarchfiles can be switched with government types.

We'd need a nice mix of English & Norman names for the leaders, of course

 

[Petrarca]

Imagine, two players complaining that each side has a Warwick leading their troops against one another.

Moderator response: "Working as intended"

 

[unmerged(37697)]

Imagine, two players complaining that each side has a Warwick leading their troops against one another.

Moderator response: "Working as intended"

Well, if we ensure that only one of the two leaderfiles contains the name "Warwick" then it's not a problem is it?

Even if there were too, they needn't be the same chap. Look at the Nevilles and the Percys; plenty of those fought for both sides - but in EUIII terms they'd still have the same name.

 

[Rotten Venetic]

Not if the given names are included, and we can do that

Besides, if one leader has been contracted by a nation, it hardly seems possible the same leader will still be available, for any nation. I've already experienced bilocation of leaders when modding EUII and will avoid this in the future.

 

[Petrarca]

Even if there were too, they needn't be the same chap. Look at the Nevilles and the Percys; plenty of those fought for both sides - but in EUIII terms they'd still have the same name.

Ah yes, I know, which is why I relish sending Clarence against Gloucester, Warwick against his brother (Neville), and all those other internecine conflicts.

 

[Rotten Venetic]

Causing fratricide is fun.
Selling your king to rebels is great fun.
Selling your queen to Turks is even funnier.

We should be able to do all these nasty deeds, and get bb in return


Anyway, it was very common for relatives to fight each other on the battlefield or to assassinate each other. Just look at the War of the Roses, which is sometimes discussed here, the pornocracy in the Papacy (no joke), the Sultans killing off brothers etc.

 

[Heinus Horatius]

the pornocracy in the Papacy (no joke)

Talk about coincidence! I read the wikipedia article on this just the other day!
Never heard of this obscure period of the papacy before, but I think the name is a hoot! :rofl:

 

[Rotten Venetic]

It's the result of bigotry mostly, but still a hoot

Back to Lancaster and York, what exactly should be their start areas?

 

[Heinus Horatius]

Back to Lancaster and York, what exactly should be their start areas?

England!

No, seriously. Since the wars of the roses were all about two branches of the royal family fighting each other, I think England should be split. York should revolt in several provinces, the rest of England (loyal to the Lancastrians) turns into Lancaster. Then they fight to the death! Winner takes all! Mhuahahahahahahahaha!

 

[unmerged(10426)]

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

Anything south of the Tees is 'the south'. Anything south of Hull is 'the far south.'

 

[unmerged(60236)]

England!

No, seriously. Since the wars of the roses were all about two branches of the royal family fighting each other, I think England should be split. York should revolt in several provinces, the rest of England (loyal to the Lancastrians) turns into Lancaster. Then they fight to the death! Winner takes all! Mhuahahahahahahahaha!

Not such a crazy idea. But i would still very much want to see ROY and PUR in Britany.

 

[Heinus Horatius]

Not such a crazy idea. But i would still very much want to see ROY and PUR in Britany.

We can do that. If YOR and LAN fail to destroy eachother, the Wars of the Roses turn into the English revolution. Lancaster turns into PUR (the protestants supporting their lawfull ruler), York turns into ROY (the nobility supporting the pretender against the might of the crown.)

Then they fight to the death! Winner takes all!!!

 

[Assos]

Nah! I want to see Yorkish colonies in South America. Why have the winner take all? Why not have the loser exiled to South America with a CB on English cores?

 

[unmerged(37697)]

Oh dear. I can see this getting out of hand quickly

 

[unmerged(7537)]

Talk about coincidence! I read the wikipedia article on this just the other day!
Never heard of this obscure period of the papacy before, but I think the name is a hoot! :rofl:

Bah! All smear propaganda!

Marozia FTW!