Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Sigismund of Luxembourg, Albrecht of Hapsburg, Ladislaus Postumus & their succession

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
I do not know if this the right thread to post this, but since it concerns Tyrol (one even concerns the succesion in Tyrol) I will post it here.

Two events for Tyrol, 322005 and 322009, deal with the Habsburg vorlande. Both trigger only if Tyrol owns Alsace but if they trigger give both Baden and Alsace to Burgundy (event 322005) or Austria (event 322009) Since usually Tyrol does not own Alsace (It starts out as the one province of Strassbourg which is a vassal of Tyrol but often gets annexed by Burgundy) these events rarely happen (they have never happened in my games).

Perhaps there is a reason not to do it this way, but it seems that both these events make more sense if they could happen if Tyrol controls either Baden OR Alsace.

Additionaly, since the lands that should be given to Burgundy in 1469 were already Habsburg posessions in 1419, would it not be better to have Alsace be a possesion of Tyrol instead of having it under the Bishopric of Strassbourg? (the event file of Strassbourg is empty except for 2 events to have strassbourg be absorbed into Germany should it form so removing Strasbourg from the game would not be a terrible loss)
 
sabular said:
I do not know if this the right thread to post this, but since it concerns Tyrol (one even concerns the succesion in Tyrol) I will post it here.

Two events for Tyrol, 322005 and 322009, deal with the Habsburg vorlande. Both trigger only if Tyrol owns Alsace but if they trigger give both Baden and Alsace to Burgundy (event 322005) or Austria (event 322009) Since usually Tyrol does not own Alsace (It starts out as the one province of Strassbourg which is a vassal of Tyrol but often gets annexed by Burgundy) these events rarely happen (they have never happened in my games).

Perhaps there is a reason not to do it this way, but it seems that both these events make more sense if they could happen if Tyrol controls either Baden OR Alsace.

Additionaly, since the lands that should be given to Burgundy in 1469 were already Habsburg posessions in 1419, would it not be better to have Alsace be a possesion of Tyrol instead of having it under the Bishopric of Strassbourg? (the event file of Strassbourg is empty except for 2 events to have strassbourg be absorbed into Germany should it form so removing Strasbourg from the game would not be a terrible loss)
Click to expand...


IIRC, when these events were written, Tyrol did own Alsace in 1419. Then Twoflower (IIRC) changed his mind a year later and opted for an independent Strasbourg. This is a country that really needs to be 'adopted'. There was a thread around here somewhere specifically for Strasbourg events. Lots of ideas..no scripters.
 
Khephren said:
IIRC, when these events were written, Tyrol did own Alsace in 1419. Then Twoflower (IIRC) changed his mind a year later and opted for an independent Strasbourg. This is a country that really needs to be 'adopted'. There was a thread around here somewhere specifically for Strasbourg events. Lots of ideas..no scripters.
Click to expand...

I checked the boards and found something in an old Germany/Austria thread. It did not contain much suggestions for Strassbourg though, so I do not think it is the thread you meant.

Anyway, I thought about it a bit, and I do not think the Habsburg Vorlande deserves two provinces, one should be enough. So should it be Baden or Alsace?

I have done a quick Wiki and neither Baden nor Strassbourg (the only nations I think can plausibly be put in one of the provinces) seem to have done much in the beginning of the EU II timespan, Baden has had a series of minor internal dynastic squabbles and Strassbourg has built a cathedral that would become the tallest building in the world when the cathedral of Vilnius burned down. Both provinces/nations only gain importance later (alsace/strassbourg when it goes to France, Baden in the Napoleonic wars) and can be released/transferred then if necessary.

So I think this leaves both options open (Tyrol owns Alsace, Baden owns Baden or Strassbourg owns Alsace and Tyrol owns Baden). And given the lack of importance of both Baden and Strassbourg (especially when compared to the Habsburgs) giving to provinces to the Vorlande is not that bad an option after all.

If we would include one of the two nations, I think it should be Baden, but only so that the mortgage of the vorlande to Burgundy is more logical and interesting.

Anyway, whatever option is picked, the aforementioned events should still be altered.
 
Last edited:
There was a Strasbourg specific thread. Can't search for it tho.
 
These are the changes to the events I proposed (changes in red), if nobody objects, I'll submit them.

Code: 
#Alsace mortgaged to Burgundy
event = { 
      id = 322005
      trigger = { [COLOR=Red]OR[/COLOR] = { owned = { province = 374 data = -1 } #Alsace
			 [COLOR=Red]owned = { province = 373 data = -1 }[/COLOR] #Baden
		}
      }
      random = no
      country = TYR
      name = "Problems in the Vorlande"
      desc = "EVENTHIST137001"
      style = 1
      
      date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1469 }
      offset = 200
       
      action_a = {
               name = "Offer Alsace to Burgundy"
               command = { type = trigger which = 137001 }
                 }
      action_b = {
               name = "Don't negotiate with Charles the Bold"
               command = { type = relation which = BUR value = -50 }
               command = { type = treasury value = -30 } #They have to pay Helvetia themselves
                       }

}
#Sigismund grows old
event = {
	id = 322009
	trigger = {
	[COLOR=Red]OR[/COLOR] = {	AND = {	owned = { province = 374 data =	TYR } #Alsace
			control = { province = 374 data = TYR }
		}
		[COLOR=Red]AND = {	owned = { province = 373 data =	TYR } #Baden
			control = { province = 373 data = TYR }[/COLOR]
	}
	exists = HAB
	[COLOR=Red]exists = BAY[/COLOR]
	not = { exists = PRM }
	}
	random = no
	country = TYR
	name = "Our duke grows old"
	desc = "In the last years of his rule, Sigismund who was influenced by corrupt advisors, contemplated
selling the Vorlande to the Duke of Bavaria-Munich. However, his relatives, Emperor Friedrich and his son
Maximilian, who were eager to expand the dynasty's power, did not tolerate and, cooperating with the estates of
the Vorlande who desired to stay under Hapsburg rule, forced Sigismund to turn these territories over to
Austria, and a few years later to abdicate completely."
	style = 1
	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1487 }
	deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1500 }
	action_a = { 
		name = "Give in to the Emperor's pressure"
		command = { type = secedeprovince which = HAB value = 374 } #Alsace
		command = { type = secedeprovince which = HAB value = 373 } #Baden
		command = { type = relation which = HAB value = 50 }
		command = { type = stability value = 1 }
		command = { type = trigger which = 179009 } #HAB: Maximilian takes control of the Vorlande
	}
	action_b = { 
		name = "Sell the Vorlande to Bavaria"
		command = { type = relation which = HAB value = -50 }
                command = { type = relation which = BAY value = 50 }
		command = { type = stability value = -1 }
                command = { type = trigger which = 125029 } #BAY: Tyrol offers Alsace
	          }
        action_c = { 
		name = "Keep the Vorlande"
		command = { type = relation which = HAB value = -50 }
		command = { type = stability value = -1 }
	}
}

I also added the exists = BAY trigger because the second option does not make sense without it. Should there be versions of this event if HAB or BAY do not exist?

Since my proposal about Baden and or Alsace is a bit more extensive, I'd like some commentary.
 
Svantevid said:
There should be at least an event where BAY doesn't exist, but HAB does.
Click to expand...

Code: 
#Sigismund grows old
event = {
	id = 322016
	trigger = {
	OR = {	AND = {	owned = { province = 374 data =	TYR } #Alsace
			control = { province = 374 data = TYR }
		}
		AND = {	owned = { province = 374 data =	TYR } #Alsace
			control = { province = 374 data = TYR }
		}
	}
	not = { exists = BAY }
	exists = HAB
	not = { exists = PRM }
	}
	random = no
	country = TYR
	name = "Our duke grows old"
	desc = "In the last years of his rule, Sigismund was forced by his relatives, Emperor Friedrich and his son Maximilian to turn the Habsburg Vorlande over to Austria, and a few years later to abdicate completely."
	style = 1
	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1487 }
	deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1500 }
	action_a = { 
		name = "Give in to the Emperor's pressure"
		command = { type = secedeprovince which = HAB value = 374 } #Alsace
		command = { type = secedeprovince which = HAB value = 373 } #Baden
		command = { type = relation which = HAB value = 50 }
		command = { type = stability value = 1 }
		command = { type = trigger which = 179009 } #HAB: Maximilian takes control of the Vorlande
	}
        action_b = { 
		name = "Keep the Vorlande"
		command = { type = relation which = HAB value = -50 }
		command = { type = stability value = -1 }
	}
}

Would this suffice? I modded the text a bit to remove all Bavarian references and deleted option b "Sell the Vorlande to Bavaria".

I thought about it, and I do not think it would be wise to have an event for if HAB does not exists. First of all, Tyrol will probably not exist if HAB does not, as it will probably have formed into it. And if it hasn't yet, the last thing we want is for the last Habsburg line to sell two thirds of their posessions. We could make it the b choice though, so that it is at least represented.
 
Code: 
#Sigismund grows old
event = {
	id = 322017
	trigger = {
	OR = {	AND = {	owned = { province = 374 data =	TYR } #Alsace
			control = { province = 374 data = TYR }
		}
		AND = {	owned = { province = 374 data =	TYR } #Alsace
			control = { province = 374 data = TYR }
		}
	}
	exists = BAY
	not = { exists = HAB }
	not = { exists = PRM }
	}
	random = no
	country = TYR
	name = "Our duke grows old"
	desc = "In the last years of his rule, Sigismund who was influenced by corrupt advisors, contemplated selling the Vorlande to the Duke of Bavaria-	Munich. In the end however, he chose to keep the Vorlande in Habsburg hands."
	style = 1
	date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1487 }
	deathdate = { day = 1 month = january year = 1500 }
	action_a = { 
		name = "Keep the Vorlande"
		command = { type = stability value = 1 } #Nobility in vorlande preferred to be ruled by Habsburgs
	}
	action_b = { 
		name = "Sell the Vorlande to Bavaria"
                command = { type = relation which = BAY value = 50 }
		command = { type = stability value = -1 }
                command = { type = trigger which = 125029 } #BAY: Tyrol offers Alsace
	          }
}

This would be my best attempt at a HAB does not exist version.
 
Last edited:
Svantevid said:
No matter when and where it occured :) . Should it really be there? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I do not know why it was put there in the first place. As long as no one can give a good reason why it should be there, I think it should be removed.
 
Regarding the Hapsburg Vorlande (although this is not really on topic here):
The reasons why the situation is set up the way it is were:
  • by having Baden represent Breisgau and Alsace the bishopric of Strassburg, the two clearly most important cities of the two regions - Strassburg and Freiburg - can be used as province capitals. Ensisheim, which would be the capital of an Alsace province representing the Sundgau, or Pforzheim, which would be the capital of Baden, were just little insignificant villages that pale in comparison to the two big imperial cities.
  • the Hapsburg Breisgau east of the Rhine was bigger and richer than the small Margraviate of Baden - especially during the long period when Baden was fragmented into several states -; therefore the territory that should be represented by the Baden province is Breisgau and not the margraviate. Such a preference is not really evident in the case of Alsace, where it's just as valid to have the province represent the Nordgau (i.e. the bishopric of Strassburg) as the Sundgau (i.e. the Hapsburg holdings and vassals)
  • there should be a province representing the Vorlande even after the French conquest of Alsace
Having Strassburg as vassal of Tyrol isn't really accurate - since the Hapsburgs only had the position of Landvogt, i.e. the overlordship over the various independent territories and cities, in the Sundgau, while the Bishops of Strassburg held the same position in the Nordgau, however the vassalization is probably required to somehow represent Hapsburg presence in Alsace.
In fact, the original plan was to "rededicate" the country of Strassburg into a kind of "meta-country" representing the Alsatian décapole plus the city of Strassburg; since for that country both the vassalization to the Hapsburgs and later the events for French intrusion into Alsace would work out best. We ended up just reusing the bishopric simply out of lazyness.

Early AGCEEP versions had Tyrol own both Alsace and Baden, which works just as well from a historicity standpoint, however Tyrol was considered by several people to be too strong with that setup. I'm in fact not sure if it isn't possible to balance the area well enough to prevent a Tyrol with both provinces from being overpowered.

Of course, you're right that several events were never reworked to account for the changed setup, and your efforts on adapting this are quite commendable.
What's problematic here is that if we want to stick to the concept of having Strassburg as Hapsburg vassals, all events involving the Vorlande being turned over to somebody (from Tyrol to Burgundy in 1469, from Burgundy to Tyrol in 1477, from Tyrol to Austria in 1493, from Austria to France - Alsace only - in 1648) would need to accomodate rather complex commands and followup events that "turn over" the vassalage of Strassburg. Things would be much less complicated if either Tyrol owns Alsace or the vassal concept is dropped.

What we need to keep in mind doing all this is that on the new map, we will be able to and will have to represent all four entities - Baden, Breisgau, Sundgau and Nordgau. Your work on events for Baden is therefore not going to waste in any case.
 
Last edited:
Twoflower said:
however the vassalization is probably required to somehow represent Hapsburg presence in Alsace.

Of course, you're right that several events were never reworked to account for the changed setup, and your efforts on adapting this are quite commendable.
What's problematic here is that if we want to stick to the concept of having Strassburg as Hapsburg vassals, all events involving the Vorlande being turned over to somebody (from Tyrol to Burgundy in 1469, from Burgundy to Tyrol in 1477, from Tyrol to Austria in 1493, from Austria to France - Alsace only - in 1648) would need to accomodate rather complex commands and followup events that "turn over" the vassalage of Strassburg. Things would be much less complicated if either Tyrol owns Alsace or the vassal concept is dropped.
Click to expand...

Do you agree with the way I adapted these events, what do you think about styria needing to not exist?

I do not think it is worth the effort to have Strassbourg switch vassalization every time. Instead to represent the Habsburg posessions in Alsace we could move some taxvalue from alsace to baden.
 
Back to work here...

Bumping this thread to finally continue the work planned here....

For starters, here goes a repost of what I had suggested some time ago regarding the feud between Friedrich V and Albrecht VI:
myself said:
Albrecht VI: Albrecht VI the Squanderer, younger brother of Friedrich V, was a constant pain in the other's back and became his greatest enemy (except Mathias Corvinus perhaps). Having received some holdings in Styria, Carinthia and Carniola in 1437, he constantly demanded more concessions from Friedrich V in order to gain power and especially the money he needed to cover his debts. When Austria and Tyrol were in need of a regent in 1439, he tried to be chosen over Friedrich - against Hapsburg family law -, but eventually failed after having conducted more or less open civil war in Austria against Friedrich and allying with Friedrich's opponents. Friedrich managed to rid himself of Albrecht for a while by a treaty signed with Sigmund of Tyrol and Albrecht in 1446, according to which Sigmund ceded the Vorlande to Albrecht in exchange for finally being released from the tutelage of Friedrich and being allowed to rule Tyrol independently, and Albrecht agreed to give up his possessions in Styria.
In the following years, Albrecht was busy governing the Vorlande - where he was in fact quite a successful ruler and e.g. founded the university of Freiburg - and (unsuccessfully) fighting the Swiss. He reassumed his position of Friedrich's rival in Austria however when Ladislaus Postumus died in 1457. Friedrich had to agree to letting Albrecht have Upper Austria. Albrecht was keen on getting all of Austria, though, and after a very intense war with Friedrich where he decisively defeated him got it in 1462. Only his premature death in 1463 (quite probably poisoned by agents of his brother) prevented him from entirely breaking his brother's power and allowed the latter to unify all of Austria with Styria.
There are three things that I would like to do here:
1. Allow Tyrol and Austria to choose between Friedrich and Albrecht as regents in 1439. Chosing Albrecht avoids a vassalisation to Styria, but results in worse DPs and a worse monarch during the regency
2. Have Tyrol release Baden by an event in 1446. It should be able to avoid this by a B choice where it asks the Swiss for protection against the Styrian brothers (there were in fact some negotiations between the Tyrolean estates and Swiss emissaries before Sigmund was talked into accepting the treaty). This Baden - ruled by Albrecht VI - would be involved in the events for the succession of Ladislaus. Baden would be returned to Tyrol upon Albrecht's death in 1463.
3. Redesign the events for the succession of Ladislaus, or in fact create events that somewhat ressemble history (right now, Austria just inherits Styria in 1463). As for results, in 1457 (at least with the historical choices) Upper Austria (on the vanilla map the Salzburg province) should go to Albrecht - i.e. to Baden if it exists, otherwise to an independent Austria reduced to that province and ruled by Albrecht, and Lower Austria (currently the Austria province) to Friedrich. In 1462, Lower Austria should pass to Albrecht, and in 1463, the territories of Albrecht and Friedrich should be unified. The question is how all this should be handled event-wise. My proposal would be the following

Event 1, 1457, for Austria
Trigger: Baden and Styria exist, Austria is AI
Salzburg is ceded to Baden, an event that has Styria inherit Austria and gives it cores on Austria and Salzburg is triggered, Baden gets an event that tells it what happened and gives it cores on Austria and Salzburg

Event 2, 1457, for Austria
Trigger: Baden and Styria exist, Austria is human
choice A: Support Friedrich
Salzburg is ceded to Baden, Baden gets an event that tells it what happened and gives it cores on Austria and Salzburg, Austria inherits Styria, gets slavonic culture and moves its capital to Styria (Graz, Friedrich's residence)
choice B: Support Albrecht
Austria is ceded to Styria, Austria inherits Baden

Event 3, 1457, for Austria
Trigger: Baden doesn't exist, Styria exists
Austria is ceded to Styria, Styria gets cores on Austria and Salzburg

Event 4, 1457, for Austria
Trigger: Styria doesn't exist, Baden exists
Salzburg is ceded to Baden, Austria gets slavonic culture

Event 5, 1457, for Austria:
Trigger: neither Styria nor Baden exists
Austria just gets a stabhit, some revoltrisk that lasts until 1463 and slavonic culture

Event 6, 1463, for Styria
Trigger: event 1 or 3 has happened, Austria or Baden still exist
Styria inherits Baden and Austria and turns into Austria

Event 7, 1463, for Austria
Trigger: either event 2 has happened and Austria chose option A or event 4 has happened; Baden still exists
Austria inherits Baden

Event 8, 1463, for Austria
Trigger: event 2 has happened, Austria chose option B, Styria still exists
Austria inherits Styria, gets slavonic culture and moves its capital to Styria

By setting up the sequence that way, we'd allow a player to start as Austria or Styria - with all the different strategic possibilites this implies in the first decades of the game - and end up as Friedrich V's Austria in 1463. The drawback of this is of course the need for a tag switch, but since the Albertine Hapsburg branch that ruled Austria in 1419 in fact died out and the Styrian branch was the one that ended up in possession of everything, Styria definitely deserves to be the country that survives unless Austria is human-controlled.
Another question regarding the sequence is of course whether and how we want to represent the war between Albrecht and Friedrich. We could encourage such a conflict with events and AI settings, do nothing about it being aware that it still might happen sometimes due to the cores they get on each other or actively discourage it. The last option would prevent them from entirely destroying each other and becoming easy prey for their neighbours; I'd propose testing the sequence a bit to see if that would be required, or if we can have the historical conflict and they will in most games (due to the importance of Austria, I'd want a percentage above at least 80) end up unified and become a solid power nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Of course, just to calm Toio, I won't be submitting anything before thoroughly testing it to make sure it's not a change for the worse :)
 
Last edited:
Twoflower said:
Bumping this thread to finally continue the work planned here....

For starters, here goes a repost of what I had suggested some time ago regarding the feud between Friedrich V and Albrecht VI:


Of course, just to calm Toio, I won't be submitting anything before thoroughly testing it to make sure it's not a change for the worse :)
Click to expand...

good luck on trying to get Baden active early, I tried and failed :mad:
 
Toio said:
good luck on trying to get Baden active early, I tried and failed :mad:
Click to expand...
What exactly did you try? I'd of course be interested in your results, and any events or other stuff you have already created :)
 
Twoflower said:
What exactly did you try? I'd of course be interested in your results, and any events or other stuff you have already created :)
Click to expand...

I tried these

1. replace events for TYL with alsace instead of Baden province.. baden will start from 1419 under Bernard I, then Jacob , bernard II etc etc.. a palantine- Baden war

2. asked that TYL own baden province as currently, then before the sale to BUR, tyrol get to swap alsace with baden , if alsace is BUR owned...so basically BUR gain no lands except for the events of the sale.

3. If baden revolt, they become independent anytime from 1419.

anyway, its been over a year, just check the thread

Only issue I had was a palantine dow on Baden , which happened often and Baden influence in alliance changes some aspects of the rhine area. never tried to fix these until I got the go ahead to accept Baden.
 
Toio said:
I tried these

1. replace events for TYL with alsace instead of Baden province.. baden will start from 1419 under Bernard I, then Jacob , bernard II etc etc.. a palantine- Baden war

2. asked that TYL own baden province as currently, then before the sale to BUR, tyrol get to swap alsace with baden , if alsace is BUR owned...so basically BUR gain no lands except for the events of the sale.

3. If baden revolt, they become independent anytime from 1419.

anyway, its been over a year, just check the thread
Click to expand...

Ah, alright. Maybe I wasn't being quite clear about what I'd suggest. In the sequence I would like to implement, "Baden" wouldn't represent the Margraviate, but the domains of Albrecht VI in the Vorlande, that he ruled after the partition agreement with his brother Friedrich III/V in 1446, with his residence in Freiburg (capital of Breisgau and province capital of our Baden province, which essentially is supposed to represent Breisgau right now).

I'm not at all opposed to the reintroduction of the Margraviate of Baden in general. It was removed from the 1419 setup because Baden (the margraviate, or "Altbaden" as it is sometimes called in German, to distinguish the core territories from the territories Baden acquired in the beginning of the 19th century, which are commonly also referred to as "Baden") isn't really that large a territory - in fact, e.g.this map shows that Breisgau covered more territory than the margraviate. It only became a big and rather powerful territorial state during the Napoleonic Wars, where it profited a lot from its early alliance with France, obtaining the Palatine territories east of the Rhine, the Breisgau, some territory from Wirtemberg and several smaller ecclesiastic territories, principalities and imperial cities, and betrayed Napoleon early enough to be able to keep its acquisitions at the Congress of Vienna. The most important cities in the area during the EU2 period were Freiburg and Konstanz, which were both under Hapsburg suzerainty as part of Vorderösterreich (Karlsruhe was founded as new residence of the Margraves only in 1715, and Durlach, the old residence, was and still is little more than a village).
For these reasons and in order to strengthen Tyrol, it was deemed preferable to have the province represent Breisgau instead of Altbaden. The plan (which was never implemented; I really have a bad habit of overloading my agenda) was to make Baden independent during the Napoleonic Wars (more exactly, upon its acquisition of Breisgau in 1805).
That said, while those arguments IMO justify representing Breisgau instead of the Margraviate when forced to choose, they are by hardly any means arguments against the inclusion of both if that is possible - the Margraviate of Baden, despite being relatively small, and being partitioned into two territories (Baden-Durlach and Baden-Baden) from 1535 to 1771, had quite an interesting history, and Baden-Durlach was one of the leading members of the Protestant Union in the Thirty Years War. With the new map, which has a Baden and a Breisgau province, this possibility will exist and should of course be used (any other setup, like a two province Baden, both provinces being owned by Tyrol or anyone else owning one of the provinces would hardly be justifiable). The only little drawback is that we'll need an additional tag to represent an independent Albrecht if the sequence is to be implemented as I suggested. I would suggest calling that country Further Austria (Vorderösterreich).

Until the new map is released, I'd be inclined to prefer working with the Baden province representing Breisgau.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back