• Hearts of Iron IV Survey

    Help us make HoI IV better by sharing your experiences in this 5 minute survey


  • Crusader Kings III Available Now!

    The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.


    Real Strategy Requires Cunning

unmerged(16159)

Eldermann
Apr 10, 2003
508
0
Visit site
Rhodz said:
mikl said:
Nice sarcasm, smartass. Are you really going to tell me that the Bavarians in our alternate timeline would rule the netherlands in the exact same way as the Spanish? For one, Spanish and Dutch cultures are nothing alike, whereas dutch and german cultures at the time were quite similar. Also, Munich was closer geographically to the region, not to mention the points that Incompetent has made.

So try and be constructive instead of just trolling other people's posts.

And that was an example of a constructive post?


And are you going to tell me they they are going to rule the dutch better? How can you be so sure?

In game terms, the differences between dutch and german culture are the same as they are between gaelic and czech culture. The Bavarians share a lot of cultural similarities with the czechs, and are a lot closer, but we have created a history in which they never gain czech culture.

We have given the Bavarians an artificial advantage over the 'Spanish' in giveing them dutch culture. This is the only reason why thy might control them better.

However, there is no particular reason why any nation should retain the 'culture' endemic to a set of provinces, when they no longer control those provinces.

After a lengthy period of not controlling the Lowlands, yes, naturally, I feel that Munich does not have a right to their culture, particularly in a period in which European culture is changing as rapidly at it does in the late 1400s. No more so than the Spanish would have IRL.
 
Last edited:

Rhodz

Captain
76 Badges
Jul 7, 2002
396
1
www.phoenixavatars.com
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Cities in Motion
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • For The Glory
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
mikl said:
Rhodz said:
And that was an example of a constructive post?


And are you going to tell me they they are going to rule the dutch better? How can you be so sure?

Because Spanish culture has no similarity in any way to Dutch culture, but German does?

In game terms, the differences between dutch and german culture are the same as they are between gaelic and czech culture. The Bavarians share a lot of cultural similarities with the czechs, and are a lot closer, but we have created a history in which they never gain czech culture.

I think the similarities shared between German and Dutch culture(at the time) are much much more significant than the similarities between most European cultures at the time. And we are in agreeance that the game creates a problem for us by keeping all cultures' relationships to each other equal.

We have given the Bavarians an artificial advantage over the 'Spanish' in giveing them dutch culture. This is the only reason why thy might control them better.

However, there is no particular reason why any nation should retain the 'culture' endemic to a set of provinces, when they no longer control those provinces.

After a lengthy period of not controlling the Lowlands, yes, naturally, I feel that Munich does not have a right to their culture, particularly in a period in which European culture is changing as rapidly at it does in the late 1400s. No more so than the Spanish would have IRL.

Point out where I said that Bavaria should keep dutch culture after losing the dutch provinces. I never said any such thing. What I did say was that Bavaria should not lose dutch culture after conquering the HRE and becoming Germany, because dutch culture, as an important part of the HRE, and as quite similar at the time to German culture, would not be a huge problem to keep in realistic terms by Bavarian rulers.
 

MattyG

Attention is love.
13 Badges
Mar 23, 2003
3.690
1
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Deus Vult
  • Diplomacy
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
Here is the core problem: we only have enough energy and resources to script a bunch of alternative histories. We could do a lot more if we had the time/people for the accurate coding. We could think up storylines where new cultures form, older cultures change and almost any country gains the culture of almost any other.

But we can't do it all. So we do what we think is more likely to happen more often, or we try to answer some of the most pressing questions that our alternative history raises. The issue of Dutch culture is one of those, so it gets hotly debated and there are events about the formation of the Country of Holland and the Reformed Provinces.

So we have Norwegian culture emerging (potentially) because the Scottish events for their intervention into the region and assimilation of Norway ask the question of how this will affect Norweigian society and culture and whether it grows significantly distant from the rest of Scandinavia.

We haven't done the same for Danish culture emerging from Scandinavian after years of rule from Al-Andalus because we haven't conceived of such a plikely storyline, otherwise the vents would (eventually ...) be there for it.

(The Czech question is one we ought to look into, because a German state owning those lands happens frequently enough.)

On another note, one of the things that holds us back from soing all this is the lack of triggers that analyse province or national culture. So it can be very tricky to code without supporting triggers.

(I just had a lightbulb - I'll include setflag which = xxxx_culture in the opening events for each country to help with this in Interregnum 2. Just have to remember to include matching setflag and clrflag commands each time a country culture is gained or lost in events.)
 

Toio

Field Marshal
6 Badges
Jun 18, 2003
7.699
0
Visit site
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
Rhodz said:
mikl said:
I think the similarities shared between German and Dutch culture(at the time) are much much more significant than the similarities between most European cultures at the time. And we are in agreeance that the game creates a problem for us by keeping all cultures' relationships to each other equal.

only German which was similar to dutch was Low german which is why Maximilian had great difficulty controlling his dutch provinces after he obtained them in 1477. he bought into the low countries high German state(military and officials )
 

unmerged(16159)

Eldermann
Apr 10, 2003
508
0
Visit site
Rhodz said:
Point out where I said that Bavaria should keep dutch culture after losing the dutch provinces. I never said any such thing. What I did say was that Bavaria should not lose dutch culture after conquering the HRE and becoming Germany, because dutch culture, as an important part of the HRE, and as quite similar at the time to German culture, would not be a huge problem to keep in realistic terms by Bavarian rulers.

Relax.

My mistake here was attempting to answer two separate themes in a single post. The comments about losing dutch culture are directed at Incompetent and MattyG.


I think the issue has been summarised neatly by MattyG, and is now dead. My understanding is that we might try to start with 3 germanic cultures, some of which might mutate into others and die out, others remain strong. And we are agreed that - like any state - Bavaria should not retain dutch culture, if it doesn't own them in the long term.
 
Nov 28, 2004
621
0
Incompetent said:
What I'm thinking of is more of an evolving situation. Cultural differences weren't really of political consequence in 1419 for the areas we currently have as 'German' and 'Dutch', so I propose we make them all German in 1419. The HRE at that stage is cohesive enough to count on their loyalty. However, the increasing independence of the Hansa from the HRE, the perceived oppression of the Emperor (if Bavaria does its usual trick of annexing everything in sight) and the chaos of the Reformation are all conspiring against German unity. As a result, a certain amount of Northern Germany is likely to look to local dialects and traditions in search of a distinct identity, and so break away; but the exact area over which this takes place will vary from game to game, depending on who owns what and when. Alternatively, and especially if the Alternate Reformation fires, it may be possible for the Emperor to prevent this split; but it will be very difficult, and will require the Emperor to make quite significant concessions (which in practice will mean he can't turn the HRE into a single state). Possible antagonists for the Emperor include the Hansa and/or religious radicals (can we have a crazy theocratic Anabaptist revolter? :D), and the TO and Burgundy might both get heavily involved on either side, depending on how scared they are of Bavarian power and so on. I see this kind of thing flaring up around the mid-16th century.



Yes, especially as Dutch culture may well emerge in opposition to the Wittelsbach Empire (somewhat similar to its RL rise to prominence in opposition to the Habsburg Empire, come to think of it).

Boy am I jumping in late to the fray....

To build a bit upon your previous post regarding Dutch/German cultural differences and tying into this you will find the answer already built in:

Dutch arose as a culture after the area had been under "foreign" control for a LONG period IRL. You start with the Burgundians and proceed to the Spanish and end up with the Austrians at the very end. During the time of the Burgundian and Spanish control of the area a certain amount of cultural cross pollination takes place and the experiences of the natives become vastly different then their German cousins to the point that when the Austrians takeover they are seen as foreign.

In a timeline in which the Wittelsbach' who were not seen as foreign in 1419 retain control over the area, you won't see the same divergence in experience that leads to the rise of a separate cultural identity among the natives of the area. They will remain "German" in other words. They may have the same difference in religion arise but that would not be enough for them to see themselves any less "German" then any other Protestant German state.

And that ties in to the desire break Germany into multiple cultural zones...

Bad idea, a truly horrible one.

Because the people of the region never,ever have stopped considering themselves whether they be in Prussia, or the Tyrol; German. An Austrian during the time in question or at least the vast majority OF it saw themselves as a German, a Prussian Junker saw themselves as a German and hell even a sizable chunk of the Swiss still saw themselves as a German.

So it would make very, very, very little difference to the locals (in game terms) whether a Prince from any other part of Germany ruled over their particular patch of Germany. We are talking a sizable hit on tax and stability for being the wrong culture something directly comparable to being the wrong religion.

And there simply was not that level of animosity between the regions. I mean we are talking about a pretty sizable level of hate here! That level of hate that drove the 30 years war on religious grounds would be amplified severely if you added in a cultural component to also fan those flames. And that is something to keep in mind: The level of nastiness seen in the 30 years war was driven primarily by the religious difference between provinces in game terms. Would it be reasonable to see that same level of resistance to a North German overlord in a South German state and vice versa for the reason that they were North or South German depending?

No it would not.

Now it IS appropriate in places like Italy where there were substantive differences between the North and the South of the country during the time period. In the North you have an area that was heavily influenced by the Lombards and in the South the Greeks. In the South the head gesture indicating "no" is different then the one in the North for example. Diet is also much different as is the experiences of the population having had different invaders and influences from said invaders then their cousins to the North.

All of that adds up to a different culture as there are not only linguistic differences, but body language, legends/myths, ethical etc. differences between the two. Differences which took a much longer time to wash away then in some other countries.

If Germany were to be broken up into multiple sub culture zones then it would be just as logical to do so with France which has just as pronounced a difference between linguists between regions (more so then Germany in some cases), as well as other more prominent influences such as Viking invasion in the North and proximity to Italy in the South.
 
Nov 28, 2004
621
0
mikl said:
Rhodz said:
And that was an example of a constructive post?


And are you going to tell me they they are going to rule the dutch better? How can you be so sure?

In game terms, the differences between dutch and german culture are the same as they are between gaelic and czech culture. The Bavarians share a lot of cultural similarities with the czechs, and are a lot closer, but we have created a history in which they never gain czech culture.

We have given the Bavarians an artificial advantage over the 'Spanish' in giveing them dutch culture. This is the only reason why thy might control them better.

However, there is no particular reason why any nation should retain the 'culture' endemic to a set of provinces, when they no longer control those provinces.

After a lengthy period of not controlling the Lowlands, yes, naturally, I feel that Munich does not have a right to their culture, particularly in a period in which European culture is changing as rapidly at it does in the late 1400s. No more so than the Spanish would have IRL.

You have forgotten a number of things here:

1. The Wittelsbach WERE in essence "Dutch" owing as the branch of the family that ruled the area were local and had been for long enough to go native. Many of the laws and customs that the Dutch wanted to restore in their revolt against the Spanish were established by this family.

2. The Bavarians share very little if any commonalities with "Czechs", they may be close by but they actually share a lot more with the Germans that lived in Bohemia and since the Czechs got somewhat Germanized over time they had some touch stones in common. But in 1419 they had just about zero in common, one of the bigger hurdles is them speaking languages that are on totally different branches of the Indo-European family! Whereas the Dutch were speaking something on the next twig over. This affects how you THINK, how you conceptualize and how you see and explain the world. And that is a MASSIVE difference! Add into it different myths, legends.... and you have the kind of cultural difference the game reflects. Not so much between Deutch and Dutch.. which are the same damn word in their dialects meaning the same damn thing: German.

The Germans would have a vastly different experience ruling the Low countries then the Spanish based in no small part on the simple fact; that they saw the world through the same language, they understood how the other thought and how they saw the world. They also had in large part the same legends, myths and folklore in common to help guide their thinking. And given a ruling family that was LOCAL in the eyes of the natives?

Yeah, I say it's a safe bet that they would not have near as a hard a time ruling the area as the Spanish did since they are not going to be trying to impose Spanish ideas of rulership on the area but rather continue on with what they know and what the natives are used to and comfortable with.
 
Nov 28, 2004
621
0
Toio said:
Rhodz said:
only German which was similar to dutch was Low german which is why Maximilian had great difficulty controlling his dutch provinces after he obtained them in 1477. he bought into the low countries high German state(military and officials )

It also did not help that the man was a total ass....

And also would not particularly operative given a Wittelsbach retention of the area since the family had been ruling it for a substantial period of time and knew the ropes given that they helped establish some of them...
 
Nov 28, 2004
621
0
MattyG said:
Here is the core problem: we only have enough energy and resources to script a bunch of alternative histories. We could do a lot more if we had the time/people for the accurate coding. We could think up storylines where new cultures form, older cultures change and almost any country gains the culture of almost any other.

But we can't do it all. So we do what we think is more likely to happen more often, or we try to answer some of the most pressing questions that our alternative history raises. The issue of Dutch culture is one of those, so it gets hotly debated and there are events about the formation of the Country of Holland and the Reformed Provinces.

So we have Norwegian culture emerging (potentially) because the Scottish events for their intervention into the region and assimilation of Norway ask the question of how this will affect Norweigian society and culture and whether it grows significantly distant from the rest of Scandinavia.

We haven't done the same for Danish culture emerging from Scandinavian after years of rule from Al-Andalus because we haven't conceived of such a plikely storyline, otherwise the vents would (eventually ...) be there for it.

(The Czech question is one we ought to look into, because a German state owning those lands happens frequently enough.)

On another note, one of the things that holds us back from soing all this is the lack of triggers that analyse province or national culture. So it can be very tricky to code without supporting triggers.

(I just had a lightbulb - I'll include setflag which = xxxx_culture in the opening events for each country to help with this in Interregnum 2. Just have to remember to include matching setflag and clrflag commands each time a country culture is gained or lost in events.)

Well if you are going to go by statistical likelihoods....

If we assume Bavaria followed the inheritance edicts of whatshisface and the primonogenture line ruled over all of the families lands (with the various sub branches sub ordinate to it in their territories as perpetual governors), and pursue roughly the same goals as he... then you would have Germany form as a unified Kingdom rather rapidly as that was the point of all of it.

He (and I can't recall his name at the moment) went to a lot of effort to stack the electoral deck in his families favor historically and if the kids had followed his will or if he had lived a bit longer and the kids followed the will strictly then Germany arises as a unified Kingdom within a generation of his death at the very latest since he was ruthlessly pursuing that goal during his lifetime.
 

MattyG

Attention is love.
13 Badges
Mar 23, 2003
3.690
1
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Deus Vult
  • Diplomacy
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
Thanks for all of these posts.

You are not too late for this debate. While we await the arrival of the new map (waiting ....) we can discuss and make any major decisions we like.

I find your arguments about German culture compelling, even if I am not excited by the game play results.

Do you think that germany would really have formed? And, if so, would it have been sustainable? No European state had grown this large to date and managed to hold together for very long, at least not since the Romans.
 

Incompetent

Euroweenie in Exile
53 Badges
Sep 22, 2003
7.927
4.904
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • For The Glory
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
MattyG said:
Do you think that germany would really have formed? And, if so, would it have been sustainable? No European state had grown this large to date and managed to hold together for very long, at least not since the Romans.

Well, if you want large Germanic states other than the HRE itself (which I'd say was a fairly strong state by contemporary standards until the Investiture Controversy of the 11th century):

The Franks formed some very large kingdoms in the early medieval period. They broke up, but mainly because kings often decided to split their lands between several sons when they died. There was also the Visigothic kingdom, which was pretty large and fairly stable in size for centuries. Early modern Germany was at least as culturally homogeneous as these states, and had a long history of de jure unity, even if de facto the Emperor's position had been steadily eroded by the Catholic Church and by local rulers.

That said, a strong, united HRE would have made early modern Europe a very different place, especially with a divided France. Basically, take the cultural, economic and military power France had in the early modern period, and double that at least. I don't think we should prevent this happening on the basis of historical plausibility, because in the Interregnum world it really isn't that implausible, any more than a united France was implausible in real life; but we should be wary of creating a monster from the perspective of balance.
 

MattyG

Attention is love.
13 Badges
Mar 23, 2003
3.690
1
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Deus Vult
  • Diplomacy
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
Incompetent said:
I don't think we should prevent this happening on the basis of historical plausibility, because in the Interregnum world it really isn't that implausible, any more than a united France was implausible in real life; but we should be wary of creating a monster from the perspective of balance.

Exactly, that's my only concern. It would kill this mod as an interesting gaming experience if the game began with (or saw very soon after 1419) a unified German-culture state. This is not a new challenge for Interregnum. Every region could have had its monstrous state if we had wanted it. Al-Andalus could have started with the peninsula unified and mostly sunni in faith. France, England, Lithuania, etc etc. But we don't want this and we need to have a history that starts Germany divided and with no easy path to unity.

I leave it then to the German-o-philes to provide the historical events and processes that have brought us to this point.

Please.

Please please, please.

Thank you. :)
 

LordInsane

Lt. General
85 Badges
Nov 1, 2007
1.279
102
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Darkest Hour
  • Deus Vult
  • For The Glory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma Pre-order
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • VtM - Bloodlines 2 Blood Moon Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
MattyG said:
Exactly, that's my only concern. It would kill this mod as an interesting gaming experience if the game began with (or saw very soon after 1419) a unified German-culture state. This is not a new challenge for Interregnum. Every region could have had its monstrous state if we had wanted it. Al-Andalus could have started with the peninsula unified and mostly sunni in faith. France, England, Lithuania, etc etc. But we don't want this and we need to have a history that starts Germany divided and with no easy path to unity.

I leave it then to the German-o-philes to provide the historical events and processes that have brought us to this point.

Please.

Please please, please.

Thank you. :)
However, if Germany was created in a way that, in most games were Bavaria is not played, won't occur (that is to say, if the current path to Germany is maintained, or another, of equal hardness or more, replaces it), the Low Countries should, in my opinion, be no harder to rule then any other part of northern Germany, as the difference is, at this point in time, not large at all (and, if Bavarian rule is maintained, the divergence that happened in OTL would not occur to the same degree, or, indeed, to any major degree).

As for historical events... as long as the Investiture Controversy, and the result of it, is maintained, the HRE would be most likely to keep on a path of relative disunity compared to it's neighbours (excepting France's and England's fall, of course).
 
Last edited:

MattyG

Attention is love.
13 Badges
Mar 23, 2003
3.690
1
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Deus Vult
  • Diplomacy
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
bobtdwarf said:
Well if you are going to go by statistical likelihoods....

If we assume Bavaria followed the inheritance edicts of whatshisface and the primonogenture line ruled over all of the families lands (with the various sub branches sub ordinate to it in their territories as perpetual governors), and pursue roughly the same goals as he... then you would have Germany form as a unified Kingdom rather rapidly as that was the point of all of it.

He (and I can't recall his name at the moment) went to a lot of effort to stack the electoral deck in his families favor historically and if the kids had followed his will or if he had lived a bit longer and the kids followed the will strictly then Germany arises as a unified Kingdom within a generation of his death at the very latest since he was ruthlessly pursuing that goal during his lifetime.

If you are speaking of Albrecht and the primogeiture edict of 1506, then this is the period in which unification can happen anyway, so this is all fine.

If somehow you are refering back to Frederick II, then wiki has this to say on the matter:

While Frederick brought the mythical idea of the Empire to a last high point, he was also the one to initiate the major steps that led to its disintegration. On the one hand, he concentrated on establishing an innovative state in Sicily, with public services, finances, and other reforms. On the other hand, Frederick was the emperor who granted major powers to the German dukes in the form of two far-reaching privileges that would never be reclaimed by the central power. In the 1220 Confoederatio cum principibus ecclesiasticis, Frederick gave up a number of regalia in favour of the bishops, among them tariffs, coining, and fortification. The 1232 Statutum in favorem principum mostly extended these privileges to the other (non-clerical) territories (Frederick II was forced to give those privileges by a rebellion of his son, Henry). Although many of these privileges had existed earlier, they were now granted globally, and once and for all, to allow the German dukes to maintain order north of the Alps while Frederick wanted to concentrate on his homelands in Italy. The 1232 document marked the first time that the German dukes were called domini terræ, owners of their lands, a remarkable change in terminology as well.
 
Nov 28, 2004
621
0
MattyG said:
Thanks for all of these posts.

You are not too late for this debate. While we await the arrival of the new map (waiting ....) we can discuss and make any major decisions we like.

I find your arguments about German culture compelling, even if I am not excited by the game play results.

Do you think that germany would really have formed? And, if so, would it have been sustainable? No European state had grown this large to date and managed to hold together for very long, at least not since the Romans.

Well thanks.

Some of what people are trying to do with culture should not be done. Better to expend the time crafting custom AI files for particular periods to slow down some states expansion rather then use the sledge hammer of culture to thwart it. After all the penalties are the same for being the wrong religion, and given that those religious differences caused people to kill one and other simply for that fact and in numbers and methods that still make us as a civilization weep?

One should VERY leery of futzing about with it without some damn good reasons; and in my mind keeping Austria from gobbling up half of Germany IS NOT good enough.

Do I think Germany could have formed? Yes, as to it's sustainability?

Well let us look at straight probability: Italy was a problem (an by Italy I only refer to the Northern bit), but a problem that generally could be handled when you had a strong emperor. That would not change for a sizable portion of the game period, not that I am saying that they should get Italian culture since the negative would be as near a reflection of problems in keeping her as any other. Italy would be the likely first portion of the HRE to fall away. Bohemia would be not as bad a problem because of the large German population and closer proximity so it would likely remain part of the HRE throughout most if not all the game period. The Swiss are a marginal problem but as long as the emperor played his hand softly at first it will be a problem that would solve itself for the most part. And without the Spanish the Dutch would be hardly a problem.

So yes you could have a sustainable HRE state for a while, and certainly a sustainable German state after Italy is let go of depending upon how the random events play out. If we keep to all "vanilla" history except for the formation of the HRE as a state in more then name under the probable family to pull it off the Wittelsbach's in the period in question; Italy would still be the weak point. The Pope is going to be a problem and that is going to create friction in Northern Italy, and once you lose the CoT in Genoa it is going to be a matter of time if the HRE has not absorbed Venice before the empire cuts it's losses. Most probable break point is the reformation. Given how the likely political calculus of this alternate Wittelbach family will play out with their frequent clashes with Papal forces in Italy and the problems that the family would have had with the church in the early period of the united empire; they would likely go protestant a la Church of England. And that would be simply to much for the Italians.

The Wittelsbach's early on were in favor of church reform and had their share of excommunications because of it, this would be unlikely to change in a timeline where they need to break some of the power of the church to shore up the power of the throne. In our history they allied with the Pope as much as a means of currying power as piety. In this timeline the paradigm would be the inverse: They would gain a greater amount of power and shore up the empire by taking another path, but it would cost them Italy.

After that you have essentially the German core states and Bohemia left and that would be a lot easier to keep together for the rest of the game period.


There might be a rough patch or two in the beginning, but that can be survived and once done it might not be "easy" per se but it won't be a back breaker either, certainly no harder then historic France or at least not much more so. But it will cost you Italy most likely, IMHO I don't see keeping Italy within the empire as enough of a rallying cry to offset some things as would be retaining Bohemia.

The set up of Bavaria in the game implies heavily that the legacy of Ludwig was not broken up amongst his idiot boys, which would require a stronger will then was left, implying softly that he may have lived a bit longer and weathered the civil war that was brewing in the last year or two of his reign (which considering he won the previous one quite handily with less support then he had going into this one seems likely). And with that being there it is only a very short span of time before you have a Germany pop up as a nation: Nothing prevents them from making the title hereditary since they write the oath.
 
Nov 28, 2004
621
0
MattyG said:
If you are speaking of Albrecht and the primogeiture edict of 1506, then this is the period in which unification can happen anyway, so this is all fine.

If somehow you are refering back to Frederick II, then wiki has this to say on the matter:

While Frederick brought the mythical idea of the Empire to a last high point, he was also the one to initiate the major steps that led to its disintegration. On the one hand, he concentrated on establishing an innovative state in Sicily, with public services, finances, and other reforms. On the other hand, Frederick was the emperor who granted major powers to the German dukes in the form of two far-reaching privileges that would never be reclaimed by the central power. In the 1220 Confoederatio cum principibus ecclesiasticis, Frederick gave up a number of regalia in favour of the bishops, among them tariffs, coining, and fortification. The 1232 Statutum in favorem principum mostly extended these privileges to the other (non-clerical) territories (Frederick II was forced to give those privileges by a rebellion of his son, Henry). Although many of these privileges had existed earlier, they were now granted globally, and once and for all, to allow the German dukes to maintain order north of the Alps while Frederick wanted to concentrate on his homelands in Italy. The 1232 document marked the first time that the German dukes were called domini terræ, owners of their lands, a remarkable change in terminology as well.

No I was referring to Ludwig IV. The Bavaria you start with in the game is the one that would have been created by him if his kids had not thwarted the will, it had a tepid prim concept in it that took a bit of effort to get around. Since the lands remain unified in 1419 it is presumed that the boys did not thwart it.

Part of the reason that it was so hard to undo the damage done by Frederick is because you never had a block of electors consistently in the hands of one family like the game has. But once you have one of those it is only a matter of time before the damage is undone because you don't have to kiss any electoral butt, you may have to kick some butt however. Not saying that there should not be a sizable revolt to reflect a bit of a civil war but after you weather that you should be mostly fine(and give it a few years).

This is the most logical of outcomes and the most probable, it may not be the most convenient one though. We might be able to come up with a way or two to delay it but the eventual outcome is painfully clear and attempts to prevent it are going to become quite obvious after a bit.
 

MattyG

Attention is love.
13 Badges
Mar 23, 2003
3.690
1
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Deus Vult
  • Diplomacy
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
bobtdwarf said:
No I was referring to Ludwig IV. The Bavaria you start with in the game is the one that would have been created by him if his kids had not thwarted the will, it had a tepid prim concept in it that took a bit of effort to get around. Since the lands remain unified in 1419 it is presumed that the boys did not thwart it.

Part of the reason that it was so hard to undo the damage done by Frederick is because you never had a block of electors consistently in the hands of one family like the game has. But once you have one of those it is only a matter of time before the damage is undone because you don't have to kiss any electoral butt, you may have to kick some butt however. Not saying that there should not be a sizable revolt to reflect a bit of a civil war but after you weather that you should be mostly fine(and give it a few years).

This is the most logical of outcomes and the most probable, it may not be the most convenient one though. We might be able to come up with a way or two to delay it but the eventual outcome is painfully clear and attempts to prevent it are going to become quite obvious after a bit.

OK, now I see what you are getting at. Although I don't see why it leads inevitably to the Wittelsbachs taking control of all the other German states, only of 'owning' the emperorship by having all the electors. (Another reason why the Pope wants to expand the imperial electors to give one to Burgundy and Savoy each).

Here are some options for us.

1. We let it all play out, and we assume that Bavaria will build inexorably toward the unification of Germany. This will require us to craft events for each minor to see how it responds to the growing power of the Wittelsbachs. But it also reinforces the importance of he Iberian crusade as the Pope's crafty way of both enhancing Catholicism in Spain and also providing a way for the Wittelsbach empeors to fail and lose prestige.

2. We assume that the division after Ludwig still happened but that various alternative marriages etc in the years before 1419 caused Ersnt (DIP 9) to reunite these possessions, in much the same way Ludwig had.

3. We begin the game with Bavaria as a smaller state. The Holland possessions will be in someone else's control. But that we have one or two choice ingheritance events set to occur in 1420-1425 that will reunite the Wittelsbach possessions under Albrecht III.

Thoughts?

Matty
 
Nov 28, 2004
621
0
MattyG said:
OK, now I see what you are getting at. Although I don't see why it leads inevitably to the Wittelsbachs taking control of all the other German states, only of 'owning' the emperorship by having all the electors. (Another reason why the Pope wants to expand the imperial electors to give one to Burgundy and Savoy each).

Here are some options for us.

1. We let it all play out, and we assume that Bavaria will build inexorably toward the unification of Germany. This will require us to craft events for each minor to see how it responds to the growing power of the Wittelsbachs. But it also reinforces the importance of he Iberian crusade as the Pope's crafty way of both enhancing Catholicism in Spain and also providing a way for the Wittelsbach empeors to fail and lose prestige.

2. We assume that the division after Ludwig still happened but that various alternative marriages etc in the years before 1419 caused Ersnt (DIP 9) to reunite these possessions, in much the same way Ludwig had.

3. We begin the game with Bavaria as a smaller state. The Holland possessions will be in someone else's control. But that we have one or two choice ingheritance events set to occur in 1420-1425 that will reunite the Wittelsbach possessions under Albrecht III.

Thoughts?

Matty

wow this is the second time I have responded to this.. the board keeps eating my posts.

I would go with a combo of 1 and 2 or 2 and 3.

If we presume that the character of the people in question is nearly identical to the historic (and trust me it is vastly safer to do so), then we can presume that the Pope is going to see the writing on the wall at some point and try and stick a stiletto in the Wittelsbach (sorry for the pun). And the easiest way for them to do that is to grant some outside electors, though that may have some blowback; the nature of which would probably be offset by expanding the empire.

That is the only way that the Iberian crusade would really have an impact really: The loss of prestige does not affect the electoral math and would only delay the inevitable by a generation or two. After some of the stink had worn off they could make their move again by simply removing the promise not to make the title hereditary in the deputation.

But if you have the creation of the new electors in the former France somewhat tied to the crusade (we'll grant you title to x,y and z portions of the former France and add the title to the list etc... but first if you would could you kill me some infidels), then you have altered the math and the politics enough to delay things a good long while.

But then again, as plausible as the above sounds we run into a wee issue:

The Empire is the largest and most powerful Catholic force, and the largest military force (potentially) in the entire West....

And the Pope would be quite mindful of the rather close and precarious proximity he has to the Moors.

Put the Germans and the French successor states at each others throat in petty squabbling and you just might be cutting your own throat as they may lack the strength to oppose the infidel.

It all depends upon how logical you want your outcomes and actions of the various players on your simulated global stage. If you are seeking a particular outcome for an ideological reason you will need to sacrifice some degrees of plausibility to achieve it. People tend to coalesce against a threat leading to greater centralization of authority, not the opposite.

Archdukes basic set up for abe was plausible to a point as it would be possible for both France and England to break up at a couple of points due to untimely deaths, civil war what have you. And that could have contributed a bit to the downfall of Spain... basically a few bad turns of luck and a few good turns of luck for other people.

But after that you have to really look at the lay of the land and ask yourself what would be the logical choices set before the various actors with an expansive and quite powerful Moslem invader in Spain? It is possible that the people of England and France would want to unify but the factions involved would likely not stop fighting over who is the rightful whosit... stranger things have happened.

But the empire's set up is one ripe for unification under one banner as it become more and more clear that the English and French are not going to pull their collective heads out of each others patoots, or at least won't in any thing close to NOW; and Germany, the empire is all that stands a chance of putting up a meaningful defense of Christiandom.

There would still be the impetus to squabble factionally but the election is the election.. and the votes are stacked. The squabbling will only go so far and then that is that.

It will all come down to what you are really looking for: Keeping everyone small to keep them small, or to explore an alternate history of Europe. If the former then we can come up with a monkey wrench of adding electors and keeping a key electoral seat out of the main branch's hands until recently to keep the tendency towards the smallish. But if it is the later then the ground is set and the logic compelling to have Germany form early as a means of effectively dealing with the threats to the West.
 

MattyG

Attention is love.
13 Badges
Mar 23, 2003
3.690
1
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Deus Vult
  • Diplomacy
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
bobtdwarf said:
I would go with a combo of 1 and 2 or 2 and 3.

If we presume that the character of the people in question is nearly identical to the historic (and trust me it is vastly safer to do so), then we can presume that the Pope is going to see the writing on the wall at some point and try and stick a stiletto in the Wittelsbach (sorry for the pun).

What pun?

And the easiest way for them to do that is to grant some outside electors, though that may have some blowback; the nature of which would probably be offset by expanding the empire.

That's exactly what we have in Interregnum, Burgundy and Savoy get electors and the empire expans its boundaries.

That is the only way that the Iberian crusade would really have an impact really: The loss of prestige does not affect the electoral math and would only delay the inevitable by a generation or two. After some of the stink had worn off they could make their move again by simply removing the promise not to make the title hereditary in the deputation.

But if you have the creation of the new electors in the former France somewhat tied to the crusade (we'll grant you title to x,y and z portions of the former France and add the title to the list etc... but first if you would could you kill me some infidels), then you have altered the math and the politics enough to delay things a good long while.

We had to make it early in the game (January 10, 1419) because unfortunately the boundaries and electoral votes cannot be adjusted once the game begins.

But then again, as plausible as the above sounds we run into a wee issue:

The Empire is the largest and most powerful Catholic force, and the largest military force (potentially) in the entire West....

And the Pope would be quite mindful of the rather close and precarious proximity he has to the Moors.

Put the Germans and the French successor states at each others throat in petty squabbling and you just might be cutting your own throat as they may lack the strength to oppose the infidel.

It all depends upon how logical you want your outcomes and actions of the various players on your simulated global stage. If you are seeking a particular outcome for an ideological reason you will need to sacrifice some degrees of plausibility to achieve it. People tend to coalesce against a threat leading to greater centralization of authority, not the opposite.

Of course we want logical outcomes, although EU2's engine does not make this easy sometimes ...

We aren't seeking a single outcome, and we haven't the time and human resources to code for every possible logical outcome, so we chose two or three possibilities, those which create intriguing changes in direction, which are fun and which are suppportive of the MP environment.

People don't always coalesce against a threat and history is littered with examples of this. And even if ioutcome X was a rare outcome it would still be logical, in as much as any human response is logical. Over the years of debating outcomes I have often wondered if people find only a 'most likely' outcome as being the only logical or realisitic outcome. But truth is stranger than fiction. Who could have predicted Alexander the Great's conquests? Hardly the 'most likely outcome' or even 'logical'. Or Castille growing in 100 years to become the most powerful state in Europe? Or the discovery of the new world? There are so many examples. If studying history has taught me anything its that logical outcomes are rare.

Archdukes basic set up for abe was plausible to a point as it would be possible for both France and England to break up at a couple of points due to untimely deaths, civil war what have you. And that could have contributed a bit to the downfall of Spain... basically a few bad turns of luck and a few good turns of luck for other people.

But after that you have to really look at the lay of the land and ask yourself what would be the logical choices set before the various actors with an expansive and quite powerful Moslem invader in Spain? It is possible that the people of England and France would want to unify but the factions involved would likely not stop fighting over who is the rightful whosit... stranger things have happened.

But there is an analogy here, which is the rise of the Ottoman Empire. Infidels, again, but they didn't really see much coordinated resistence.

However, I think you make an interest remark about western European reactions to a unified Iberia under Al-Andalus. I think it ought to be a trigger for a reforming of France if this has not already happened.
But the empire's set up is one ripe for unification under one banner as it become more and more clear that the English and French are not going to pull their collective heads out of each others patoots, or at least won't in any thing close to NOW; and Germany, the empire is all that stands a chance of putting up a meaningful defense of Christiandom.

There would still be the impetus to squabble factionally but the election is the election.. and the votes are stacked. The squabbling will only go so far and then that is that.

But I still don't see why having a lock on the title of Emperor necessarily leads to Germany being formed. The HRE has been around for a while and there have been many powerful emperors, but Germany remains highly divided.

It will all come down to what you are really looking for: Keeping everyone small to keep them small, or to explore an alternate history of Europe. If the former then we can come up with a monkey wrench of adding electors and keeping a key electoral seat out of the main branch's hands until recently to keep the tendency towards the smallish. But if it is the later then the ground is set and the logic compelling to have Germany form early as a means of effectively dealing with the threats to the West.

We need to start states small and not make it easy for a state to grow large. So, Bavaria can't simply become Germany in 1430 and inherit all of the German minors. Game-wise, there is no balance and no fun.

I also don't see why the electors will necessarily agree on who to elect, just because they are all Wittelsbachs. They might well hate one another.
 
Nov 28, 2004
621
0
MattyG said:
What pun?



That's exactly what we have in Interregnum, Burgundy and Savoy get electors and the empire expans its boundaries.



We had to make it early in the game (January 10, 1419) because unfortunately the boundaries and electoral votes cannot be adjusted once the game begins.



Of course we want logical outcomes, although EU2's engine does not make this easy sometimes ...

We aren't seeking a single outcome, and we haven't the time and human resources to code for every possible logical outcome, so we chose two or three possibilities, those which create intriguing changes in direction, which are fun and which are suppportive of the MP environment.

People don't always coalesce against a threat and history is littered with examples of this. And even if ioutcome X was a rare outcome it would still be logical, in as much as any human response is logical. Over the years of debating outcomes I have often wondered if people find only a 'most likely' outcome as being the only logical or realisitic outcome. But truth is stranger than fiction. Who could have predicted Alexander the Great's conquests? Hardly the 'most likely outcome' or even 'logical'. Or Castille growing in 100 years to become the most powerful state in Europe? Or the discovery of the new world? There are so many examples. If studying history has taught me anything its that logical outcomes are rare.



But there is an analogy here, which is the rise of the Ottoman Empire. Infidels, again, but they didn't really see much coordinated resistence.

However, I think you make an interest remark about western European reactions to a unified Iberia under Al-Andalus. I think it ought to be a trigger for a reforming of France if this has not already happened.


But I still don't see why having a lock on the title of Emperor necessarily leads to Germany being formed. The HRE has been around for a while and there have been many powerful emperors, but Germany remains highly divided.



We need to start states small and not make it easy for a state to grow large. So, Bavaria can't simply become Germany in 1430 and inherit all of the German minors. Game-wise, there is no balance and no fun.

I also don't see why the electors will necessarily agree on who to elect, just because they are all Wittelsbachs. They might well hate one another.


I presume you are making a joke on the pun :p but on to the rest of the post...


Well yes there are a number of historic incidents that don't fit the mold, does not necessarily make them illogical outcomes, just improbable ones (there is always that "B" and "C" choice in the G.O.D [games operational director] pop up screen that we don't ever see); and the game engine can take those into account through the aforementioned alternate choices.

But we also run into a cardinal rule for all works of fiction here: Reality does not have to make sense but fiction does. So when I say something is the most likely outcome I mean exactly that: If deciding the event on a dice roll the odds will skew towards that outcome. Doesn't make it a "lock" but it makes it far more likely to occur then not.

Now it is certainly possible that if the various electoral seats are in different branches of the Wittelsbach family that they might not in actuality vote for one of their own (in the event that they can't come to a decision of which member of the family is going to get it, or one cousin still holds a grudge from childhood etc), but the game engine does not do that very well... so we have to work with what we have, and what we have is a system that almost always has Bavaria as emperor.

So we can assume that the votes are spread out amongst the branches of the family and that they almost always vote themselves in (which tends to not make sense over the long haul of time, there is bound to be a squabble logically, the lack of variability here becomes a statistical outlier). Or we can assume based upon how the engine handles it that the votes are in the hands of a single branch which actually will tend to make a lot more sense based upon how the game acts.

And that is what will lead to the unification: A family that can vote themselves emperor without having to make the kind of compromises and promises that the Hapsburg's did (which kept the empire a loose structure as the various smaller states protected their bailiwick), would be able to do it through the existing system. They don't have to promise to the electors that they will not make the throne hereditary, they don't have to make promises about not changing much of the system, they don't have to do anything but look after their own interests and not the interests of those that wish to grow their own personal power at the empires expense.

It is not a guaranteed outcome, few things human are; but it is the most likely the most probable of outcomes. Think of each election as having an "A", "B", & "C" choice in which "A" is make the throne hereditary.... how many times in a row must the game make a "B" or "C" choice for the empire to NOT unite?

And how likely is that eventuality?

People today and even more so back then tend to look out after their own interests and tend to take the path that gives them greatest benefit or increases their power. Sure there are examples of that not happening (that "B" choice again), but it is still the more likely of outcome choices for a person. And we know that the Hapsburg's made an attempt at unifying the empire at least once with a far weaker position from which to start, and that the Wittelsbach's were equally ambitious and just as aggressive perhaps a bit more so given the number of wars they got themselves into with the Hapsburg's and the disparity in their countries sizes...

So we can make a factually based deduction that they will try to unify the empire, and that means that it is going to suck eggs being a German minor player.... you can always choose not to be annexed, but you are going to end up like Liechtenstein... small and surrounded probably selling stamps and tax breaks.

I can see an attempt to resurrect France, I alluded to it a bit in my other post; I also see how the various factions involved are going to spend a great deal of time fighting over who is the rightful one to do it because they have no method to solve that question other then combat.

But Germany doesn't have that particular problem.

That is what I am driving at: The unification of a German kingdom is the most probable of outcomes given the set up and human nature. It is not so much a question of "if" it happens but a matter of when.

EDIT:

To expand upon that a bit; given how Bavaria plays her hand in the game as has oft been reported, she ends up absorbing Germany quite a large percentage of times.

So not only can we make an argument for this happening based upon sound game theory reasons, human nature reasons, but also because the game tends to do it all on it' own reasons....

Fun is a relative and subjective perception, some fun may be lost in one aspect but fun will be generated in another in this turn of events. Those people that want to play Anhalt into being a major power may lose out here, but to be frank they had a near vertical wall in front of them anyway on that score; but the part of the game where people enjoy a gripping alternate history with a high degree of plausibility/probability would be greatly enhanced. So it becomes a matter of sacrificing the quite probable to the interests of the nearly impossible as a choice to some degree.
 
Last edited: