You also get a triggered modifier imposing +3 National Unrest, +10% stability cost, and -1 Prestige/year, which can only be removed by forming Italy, becoming Emperor, or leaving the HRE.
- 4
Shadown Kingdom - gameplay is the only reason behind it?
- Thread starter ZivDero
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Beside still being protected by emperor. Especially useful as Genoa, or Savoy if game is running badly/France goes enrage
- 1
It would be nice if you could bribe powers to stay, make Free Cities, Imperial Favor, etc.
Say, if you can get them/keep them above 150. But if they go below zero, they can double-think about staying.
That way, a Lucca, who might be dependent on the Emperor, might stay, but a Milan that rivals Austria might leave.
I just loathe automagical and binary decision systems that are not really decisions.
Putting the huge maluses on the Italian states if they decide to stay makes it a fait accompli and a false choice. ("Gee, Mister Emperor, I'd love to stay and all, but look at the time... gotta run!")
Say, if you can get them/keep them above 150. But if they go below zero, they can double-think about staying.
That way, a Lucca, who might be dependent on the Emperor, might stay, but a Milan that rivals Austria might leave.
I just loathe automagical and binary decision systems that are not really decisions.
Putting the huge maluses on the Italian states if they decide to stay makes it a fait accompli and a false choice. ("Gee, Mister Emperor, I'd love to stay and all, but look at the time... gotta run!")
- 4
@Trin Tragula Not the first time i mention it ( in the suggestion thread btw) but i really feel like the papal states shouldn't be part of the objectives concerning the shadow empire event. Even if historically the pope didn't like the emperor <->, none would have even consider conquering Rome, it makes no sense. Secondly allies AI of the emperor should a least consider staying in the empire without having a huge penalty whereas tension should grow with the others while actually AI austria always get alliances with at least one or two minors in Italy which makes no sense historically.
- 2
If the Papal States aren't a target then the task reduces to "kick Venice out of the Terraferma and wait for PAP to diploannex Urbino".
- 1
Attacking the pope for the longest time was diplomatic suicide, and even when Italy was formed they still allowed the pope to control Vatican city. Hell theres no reason, aside the emperor apparently wanting to lose the HRE altogether for italy, that the Emperor should need to gun down rome. Never was part of the empire either, so the requirement makes little sense. Realistically the princes would raise up and italy would see the emperor attacking rome as a reason to rise up and kick him out. Really any catholic could use attacking the pope for a reason to attack the emperor.
- 4
Didn't pope normally crown the emperor? Also remember at the start of the game the era is still SORTA the mediveal era where the church could simple kick the emperor to the side and had more authority than him.
Holy ROMAN Empire
- 4
Those are all reasons to require the attack on Rome. The Pope is an apparently unassailable diplomatic force. Despite not being part of the empire, he has huge influence on his neighbours, challenging the Emperor's authority. He needs to break the power of Rome to demonstrate his power to the Italian princes.
- 3
Wouldn't it be better to have that to be separate then? After all, showing that your more powerful than the pope is way different than reigning in Italy, no? Your forcing those who are in the empire and those who were in the empire to be under it. Rome has never been in the empire, and remember The papal states are bigger than Rome, restricting them to Rome makes more sense than going 'oh time to kick the pope out of his holy seat'. You've probably already broken his power by the time to restrict him to Rome, there's really no reason to go further.
- 2
You don't need to hold Rome by yourself, you can have the PAP as a vassal, right ? You take quite a big diplo rep malus (-2 I think), but it's possible
I would really like a mechanic to represent de facto independence from the Empire, e.g., a prince that becomes de facto independent enjoys some of the bonuses but none of the maluses associated with membership while the Emperor gets an IA malus for having de facto independent princes within the Empire.
The Emperor, of course, would want to make sure that all of the princes are fully cooperative. If he's unable to do so, the Peace of Westpahlia would remove any de facto independent princes from the Empire.
AFAIK, this would be a decent setup for pre-1648 Italy, Netherlands, and Switzerland.
The Emperor, of course, would want to make sure that all of the princes are fully cooperative. If he's unable to do so, the Peace of Westpahlia would remove any de facto independent princes from the Empire.
AFAIK, this would be a decent setup for pre-1648 Italy, Netherlands, and Switzerland.
- 1