Poland in EUIII

[unmerged(36125)]

O my god,what I here wrote! Sorry!

I think he wants to know what Poland-Lithuania will look like in EUIII.

This I wanted to write.

Sometimes I am writing too fast and I am turning words.

 

[unmerged(26270)]

My hop is the contrary that there shouldnt be to many historical events.

I disagree. For me historical events are the core of fun in Paradox games. The more the better, and all with alternatives. It isn't too much diffiecult to make them logical. I believe though that to satisfiy all camps there simply should be an option at the beginning of the game regarding the use and extent of events.

 

[Ulyanov]

I disagree. For me historical events are the core of fun in Paradox games. The more the better, and all with alternatives.

I totally agree! You have my support on this one!

The many historical events are one of the main features that makes paradox games stand out from the masses.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

I totally agree! You have my support on this one!

The many historical events are one of the main features that makes paradox games stand out from the masses.

Well-placed and interesting events which add a layer of depth to the game are of course good, but ones that clobber the player simply because their country historically had a difficult time around that period are just irritating and often don't make sense - things like bankruptcy, economic crashes or major rebellions could be dealt with much better through general context based events or game mechanics.

So for Poland, up with plausible and historically based Monarch election events if its a noble republic, but down with the dreaded deterministic 'Liberum Veto in Poland' style ones!

 

[unmerged(58460)]

I agree with Sarmatia1871. It would be best to relz on game mechanics rather than a series of devastating events. The tendency toward decentralization and the empowerment of the middling and lower nobility was by no means inevitable in Poland or unique to Poland. Most of Europe, and the larger kingdoms in particular, should have to struggle with internal divisions and the changing structure of society. Do the lower nobility give way to the magnates and aristocracy? Does the King intervene with the lower nobility to undermine the great families? To penalize Poland and Spain so heavily as in EUII was frustrating to say the least. Internal divisions would play a rich role in political and social development, but should be based more on the size and population of the state. Larger state = higher possibility of social reordering and dissent. Smaller state = less power to reorder society.

Additionally, I think there should be more balance between entralization and decentralization. As I recall EU II had a definite progressivist view of history. I would like to see a military trade-off between centralization and decentralization. Centralized states should be more free to wage foreign wars, but decentralized states should benefit from defensive wars. This could be reflected in higher stability penalties for a decentralized state declaring war on a foreign kingdom and by the introduction of volunteer armies within the home provinces during a lengthy defensive war.

 

[Quift]

I agree with Sarmatia1871. It would be best to relz on game mechanics rather than a series of devastating events. The tendency toward decentralization and the empowerment of the middling and lower nobility was by no means inevitable in Poland or unique to Poland. Most of Europe, and the larger kingdoms in particular, should have to struggle with internal divisions and the changing structure of society. Do the lower nobility give way to the magnates and aristocracy? Does the King intervene with the lower nobility to undermine the great families? To penalize Poland and Spain so heavily as in EUII was frustrating to say the least. Internal divisions would play a rich role in political and social development, but should be based more on the size and population of the state. Larger state = higher possibility of social reordering and dissent. Smaller state = less power to reorder society.
Additionally, I think there should be more balance between entralization and decentralization. As I recall EU II had a definite progressivist view of history. I would like to see a military trade-off between centralization and decentralization. Centralized states should be more free to wage foreign wars, but decentralized states should benefit from defensive wars. This could be reflected in higher stability penalties for a decentralized state declaring war on a foreign kingdom and by the introduction of volunteer armies within the home provinces during a lengthy defensive war.

Shouldn't thgat be the contrary? A smaller state is better handled, fewer families to consider and in general easier to reform? ex. Savoy?

 

[unmerged(47631)]

I think that we shouldn't focus on differences beetwen decentralized and centralized states. Poland was in unique position in Europe, and it had unique status - many people from all over the world came to Poland just because it was a open mind country. I'm not going to suggest that it is impossible to create enough complicated system for unique polish law/society because i think that some things should be made simple. In comparison to all other western countries in XV/XVI century in Poland, on the one hand we had a time of devastating wars with increased need for centralization - especially if we consider army, and on the other hand every new king had to give up more of his power to nobility wchich made him weaker. This difference was unique to Poland society - if we consider other countries we could have seen that in hard times the power of king was getting stronger due to the fact that only strong king could protect his servants from foreign threat. Of course Poland had found his own path...

That is why when we think about unique polish-lithuania act of union in XV-XVI century (it was signed in XV century but it took a lot of time to make things go smooth) we could observe a wave of innovation in polish-lithuania society. How that can be observed in game?

P.S. I'm in Germany now so i have a little problem with keyboard - it's not exactly the same as i have in Poland. Sorry for words-errors.

 

[Kurdistani]

Poland was a baston of Papist reaction.....

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Poland was a baston of Papist reaction.....

It may seem that way now, but it certainly wasn't in the 16th and 17th centuries!

 

[SaberHRE]

It may seem that way now, but it certainly wasn't in the 16th and 17th centuries!

Agreed, but... Casimir Jagiellonczyk... Surely a papist puppet.

To be honest with you The Commonwealth(the lithuanians were there too! Duh! They were sitting on our throne!), was a very fragile, and in my opinion from-the-start a doomed nation. Its size, mutli-etnicity, decentralized government, made it one of the most weakest states in those times(Big country does not mean strong country).

There are many critics of the Commonwealth on both sides(Lithuanian and Polish).

I would like to see as mentioned, some realm disturbing events for a weak ruler, and even a seperation event, where independent Poland and Lithuania are created.

 

[unmerged(19226)]

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the second half of XVI and in the beginning of XVII centuary wasn't weak state, and if some reforms were made enough early it could avoid its fate. Argument that it had many nations and religions so it had to collapse is wrong, just take a look on austrian Habsburgs, real power also in XIX centuary. I hope also, that game will show power of Polish cavalry, especially Polish Hussars (link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husaria)

 

[unmerged(58460)]

Agreed, but... Casimir Jagiellonczyk... Surely a papist puppet.

To be honest with you The Commonwealth(the lithuanians were there too! Duh! They were sitting on our throne!), was a very fragile, and in my opinion from-the-start a doomed nation. Its size, mutli-etnicity, decentralized government, made it one of the most weakest states in those times(Big country does not mean strong country).

There are many critics of the Commonwealth on both sides(Lithuanian and Polish).

There were certainly disadvantages to a decentralized government, but centralized governments had there own problems, which should be reflected in the game. The 17th century crisis was largely a reaction against the centralizing tendencies of European states at the expense of the traditional nobility. In the case of Poland-Lithuania, would it have not faired better by favoring further decentralization and accepting the Ukraine as a partner in the commonwealth? Arguably, the decision to limit the szlachta (& not include the cossacks) resulted in its own 17th century crisis. The Republic had been very strong with healthy internal political debate before the middle of the 17th century. Compare the situation in Poland-Lithuania to the English Civil War or the Fronde in France. Is it so clear that Poland-Lithuania was doomed to failure? Decentralization in Poland-Lithuania encouraged support from a wide body of society regardless of ethnicity and religious affiliation (observe the support and preference of german burgers in Royal Prussia for the Republic as oppossed to Brandenburg.) I believe that attempts to centralize the state (not to be confused with the army) would have shortened the lifespan of the Republic.
I suggested using the centralization/decentralization slider to mimic the development of the state, but it is as much about inclusion/exclusion within the state. Geographically, power was diffused through the sejmiki in Poland, while the major cities of Royal Prussia maintained considerable power. At the same time, a wide scope of the nobility (poor and rich) and some burgers participated in the Republic's political life, at least until the mid-17th century. Can the same be said of France and England? Centralization was carried out to certain extent (Much less in France), but did government become more inclusive? Was the result completely positive?

 

[unmerged(58460)]

Shouldn't thgat be the contrary? A smaller state is better handled, fewer families to consider and in general easier to reform? ex. Savoy?

I should have underlined the higher possibility of dissent. What happens when a traditional element in the state finds itself undermined and effectively removed from the center of power? Think of the middling or provinical nobility or even the lesser aristocracy. A King may or may not be effective at reordering society to consolidate his power at the expense of the nobility. John Lackland was certainly a failure as far as his personal power is concerned, while Louis XIV was quite effective. However, the larger the state, the more elements the government has to juggle. Could Poland-Lithuania be as easily manipulated as Savoy?

 

[unmerged(59488)]

I should have underlined the higher possibility of dissent. What happens when a traditional element in the state finds itself undermined and effectively removed from the center of power? Think of the middling or provinical nobility or even the lesser aristocracy. A King may or may not be effective at reordering society to consolidate his power at the expense of the nobility. John Lackland was certainly a failure as far as his personal power is concerned, while Louis XIV was quite effective. However, the larger the state, the more elements the government has to juggle. Could Poland-Lithuania be as easily manipulated as Savoy?

This reply is a general statement after reading all previous comments: some respondees (most of my fellow Polish coutrymen) got too much bogged down in the nitty-gritty detailed discussions about a precise historical overview of the Polish and Lithuanian Commonwealth in the game. Too many details would make the game too difficult and too long. Adding so many variables to one country, means (to be fair) adding similar factors to all other ones. From my perspective it is just great to start the game with a large and potentially strong Poland and Lithuania (for the Lithuanias have the option to leave the Commonwealth, and see how they'd fair without a powerful ally), and then progress as one seems fit - especially by expanding the territory and the economy, specifically trade. I would be most contnet if a non-Pole elected Poland as his or her country to play and enjoy evolving it.

 

[unmerged(26270)]

Personally I would like an option to create Habsburg Poland instead of Jagiellon one

 

[unmerged(4640)]

Personally I would like an option to create Habsburg Poland instead of Jagiellon one

Already being done, (See Sig and thus 1558 [1597] RPG on these forums)

 

[unmerged(58460)]

This reply is a general statement after reading all previous comments: some respondees (most of my fellow Polish coutrymen) got too much bogged down in the nitty-gritty detailed discussions about a precise historical overview of the Polish and Lithuanian Commonwealth in the game. Too many details would make the game too difficult and too long. Adding so many variables to one country, means (to be fair) adding similar factors to all other ones. From my perspective it is just great to start the game with a large and potentially strong Poland and Lithuania (for the Lithuanias have the option to leave the Commonwealth, and see how they'd fair without a powerful ally), and then progress as one seems fit - especially by expanding the territory and the economy, specifically trade. I would be most contnet if a non-Pole elected Poland as his or her country to play and enjoy evolving it.

If by "too many details" you are referring to event-driven developments, I agree. The game should be driven by general game mechanics as much as possible. Events should be added for historical flavor and should not become deterministic. I tend to be distrustful of exceptionalism in national histories, which nation-dependent events seem to perpetuate. I was arguing that the game should not favor one path to development over another as far as the sliders and form of government are concerned. It would be stifling if the English or French model is the most advantageous and everyone else should follow suit if they want to succeed (whatever that means). The mechanics should simply incorporate the possibility of state development beyond absolutism or enlightened monarchy. Political developments in the Dutch Republic and Poland-Lithuania were perfectly reasonable and should not be interpreted as evolutionary dead-ends.

If the U.S. collapses as a democracy tomorrow (and under G W it might), that does not mean that the least 200 years of democracy was an unsightly fluke. The historiography loves to portray the Polish-Lithuanian Republic as anarchy and the monarchies of Prussia and Russia as enlightened , but contemporaries didn't neccessarily see it that way.

 

[SaberHRE]

Already being done, (See Sig and thus 1558 [1597] RPG on these forums)

I think he meant, an Earlier Habsburg marriage between William and Hedwig. Had it become true, there would have been no Poland.

 

[unmerged(26270)]

I think he meant, an Earlier Habsburg marriage between William and Hedwig.

No I didn't meant that.

 

[unmerged(55147)]

Yes, that dreaded liberum veto. There should be options to totally stamp it out, but not without many a noble revolt! And we need an historically event (for EUIII) every week! With just a few options, because you don't want to rattle your mind over your saving grace, your country, your empire and important decisions that will change the face of Europa! Forever! (Or at least in my memory drive )