That would be a bad idea...Garbon said:I don't know anything about it, but the FF had Toulouse and Montpellier as owned by Foix-Bearn.
agreed, unless we end up using Hainault at gamestart.Ambassador said:in your map, Avesnois should better be given to Burgundy, to represent the country of Rethel early on, rather than to Brabant as part of the county of Hainaut.
Since Philip II Count of Nevers and Rethel was the son of Philip II Duke of Burgundy, and it was through the former's progeny that the counties and titles were inherited, it seems more logical to interpret Rethel (and Nevers) as Burgundian.renaud vibien said:The count of Rethel was not the duke of Burgundy but one of his cousin. It's the same situation that Brabant so it's a better approximation to give the province to Brabant because it's in the same relation to Burgundy.
Nevers is as much a fief of France as the county of bourgogne is though. At gamestart, the count of Nevers is the son of the youngest son of Philip II Duke of Burgundy. I agree that Nevers should be interpreted as Burgundian at gamestart.renaud vibien said:The county of Nevers was not part of the Burgundian State. It was a french fief whom the count (a cousin of the duke of Burgundy) was allied to the Burgundian state until 1464 and to the French state after.
Well, if Nevers isn't the only county in our EU2 province, then we could perhaps put it into more context and represent John's alienation as revoltrisk and less tax value.renaud vibien said:If we have a Nivernais province, it's owned by Burgundy from 1419 to 1464 and is inherited by event by France in 1464.
The third one is the decider here. The first two are really only one reason which is invalidated by the fact that with the current Auxerrois sitatuaion, we'd still get a homologous problem when John supports Louis XI rather than his Duke and cousin as you pointed out.renaud vibien said:There is three reason to separate Troyes from Auxerre :
- The county of Auxerre was given de jure by Bedford to Philipp the Good in 1424 and the county of Champagne in 1429.
- In 1429, Charles VII taked Troyes but not Auxerre. After that until the death of Charles the Rash in 1477, Auxerre stayed in burgundian hands.
- The map is for a game 1419-1820. From 1477 to 1791 Troyes was part of the Province of Champagne and Auxerre of the Province of Bourgogne.
Here's something that's more or less what's already out there: County of Nevers, Auxerre, and Tonnerre lumped together and labelled either Auxerrois or Nivernais (or Nevers, whatever you want), then we split Champagne into 2, as has been done, leave their names as they are (which is really bad IMO -- there's gotta be some other suggestion out there), but we alter the border of these three provinces to make them look better and to better represent the situation between ENG and BUR.
We could play around with the Auxerrois-Bourgogne border to your heart's content...
Orleans is admittedly weak, but currently I would not place Armagnac and Bourbon in a different boat than Foix.renaud vibien said:Foix-Bear (later Foix-Béarn-Navarre) had one at a lesser degree than the dukes of Burgundy and Britanny but at a far greater degree than Armagnac, Orleans or Bourbon.
If Foix ownes the Langedoc at gamestart, we will have no choice but to grant Normandy independence at gamestart as a vassal of ENG. The de facto arrangement in Normandy at gamestart with respect to England already warrants independence, IMHO.renaud vibien said:But Normandy neither revolted in EU2 times with the objectives of becoming independent
I disagree, this opens up a can of worms in the world of Lieutenant-Generals, Captain-Generals, governors, etc. The Duke of Burgundy's governors in the lowlands, for example, Warwick, York and Somerset successively in Normandy, and more so with Huntingdon and Gloucester in Guyenne - all had more authority and responsibilities than Foix had as a Lieutenant-General in Languedoc. Foix's abuses of his appointment should be modelled with events, IMO.renaud vibien said:The dauphin Charles came in person in Languedoc to demote him and he didn't dare to resist. So the best model of this situation is to have Toulouse and Montpellier owned by Foix-Béarn (but without core on it) and to have events where Dauphiné/Armagnac Party can inherit them.
The southwestern theatre is quite exciting though, and increasing the number players in this region (adding Armagnac for exmaple) makes things amore interesting. I agree that events need to be scripted to model the developments along the marches. We could free Guyenne at gamestart, for de facto reasons; the authority given to the Lieutenant-Generals in Guyenne included financial, judicial, and diplomatic carte-blanche. Her Lieutenant's negotiated truces with her neighbours and indeed even Charles VII, IIRC. This region was very quiet for large periods of time for these reasons (whether or not there were more distal reasons for peace between Guyenne and her immediate French neighbours and Charles himself is irrelevant for the argument, the point is the authority is there).
Agreed.Ambassador said:I know, but a province doesn't have to represent the same thing along the 400 years
If a province needs to be bent and twisted slightly one way or another in order to better represent a certain situation in a given time period (or another) then this helps us make use of thw limitations of province-based maps in general. As long as the framework for each situation is understood and agreed upon in the regional thread, then awesome. Keeping province interpretations rigid for all provinces throughout the entirey of the game is simply begging for unhappiness all around, because no one person or even a group of people at this formative time is going to be able to come up with all of the potential uses for 400 years of gameplayrenaud vibien said:I desagree with you on this subject. I think the name of the province and of his city is relevant...
Would be nice.Ambassador said:Might be. Provence would have a hard time keeping Bar, but it would open more possibilities for the Anjou/Lorraine sequence.
It wouldn't matter as long as we understood (and made it understood) which interpretation suited which time period best. Artois's province interpretation was argued in the first few pages of the Holland thread, IIRC, MKJ sought a more flexible framework.renaud vibien said:...is "Artois" province really Artois or Hainaut ?