Spanish succession events

[unmerged(16417)]

With the Spanish succession events (SPA3173 and the events it triggers), the alliance commands have been placed with the wrong country. At the moment the SPANISH event contains the commands to ally with France or Austria:

#The Succession of Carlos II in Spain#
event = {

id = 3173
random = no
country = SPA
name = "EVENTNAME3173"
desc = "EVENTHIST3173"
style = 4

date = { day = 1 month = november year = 1700 }
offset = 41
deathdate = { day = 2 month = november year = 1700 }

action_a ={
name = "ACTIONNAME3173A" #Felipe of Bourbon#
command = { type = trigger which = 3199 }
command = { type = trigger which = 3130 }
command = { type = trigger which = 3035 }
command = { type = trigger which = 3511 }
command = { type = stability value = 2 }
command = { type = dynastic which = FRA }
command = { type = alliance which = FRA }
command = { type = relation which = FRA value = 150 }
command = { type = relation which = HAB value = -150 }
}

action_b ={
name = "ACTIONNAME3173B" #Carlos of Habsburg#
command = { type = trigger which = 3200 }
command = { type = trigger which = 3131 }
command = { type = trigger which = 3036 }
command = { type = trigger which = 3512 }
command = { type = stability value = -1 }
command = { type = dynastic which = HAB }
command = { type = alliance which = HAB }
command = { type = relation which = HAB value = 150 }
command = { type = relation which = FRA value = -150 }
#Habsburg Dynasty#
command = { type = wakemonarch which = 04151 }
command = { type = wakemonarch which = 04152 }
command = { type = wakemonarch which = 04153 }
command = { type = wakemonarch which = 04154 }
command = { type = wakemonarch which = 04155 }
command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 04146 }
command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 04147 }
command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 04148 }
command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 04149 }
command = { type = sleepmonarch which = 04150 }
}


}

The trouble with this is that alliance commands work by making other countries join the alliance of the country the event happens to. In other words France or Austria will join whatever alliance Spain belongs to.

Why is this a problem? The question during the Spanish succession crisis was: would Spain join the French-led bloc (the Bourbons) or the Austrian-led bloc (the Habsburgs). However, the way the event works at the moment, the question is whether France or Austria will join Spain's alliance.

This is illogical and can have extremely odd results. For example, if Spain is allied with Austria, and Spain opts for Action A (ally with the Bourbons) then, if France is without allies, France will join Spain in an alliance led by Austria! I have seen this happen in an actual game. Exactly the opposite of the "two opposing blocs" effect the event is supposed to produce.

How can it be solved? It's quite simple to delete the alliance commands from the Spanish event 3173. I.e.:

command = { type = alliance which = FRA }

from Action A. And

command = { type = alliance which = HAB }

from Action B.

Instead add:

command = { type = alliance which = SPA }

to both FRA3130 and HAB3200. That way, Spain will join the alliance containing France or Austria, not the other way round.

Unfortunately there is a more general problem with this and all other alliance commands. If the country already has allies (as is almost always going to be the case) the alliance command has no effect.

Is it possible to make it so that alliance commands CANCEL existing alliances (just like vassalisation does)? This would be much more logical, and it would mean that alliance commands actually have an impact.

 

[AndrewT]

I'll wait for more informed comment than I can provide before acting on this.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Originally posted by Jason Bush

Unfortunately there is a more general problem with this and all other alliance commands. If the country already has allies (as is almost always going to be the case) the alliance command has no effect.

Is it possible to make it so that alliance commands CANCEL existing alliances (just like vassalisation does)? This would be much more logical, and it would mean that alliance commands actually have an impact.

I suspect this is the reason why this bug hasn't been reported until now - Spain is ALWAYS in an alliance when the event hits so the bug is irrelevane. It would be great if the alliance command canceled existing alliances, but this is WAD, and the potential for introducing new bugs with this change seems pretty high.

Still you're right about the alliance problem. It's a little more complicated than you're making it out to be, if the vassalization had not been removed that woudl break the Spanish alliance, and the alliance command (were it in the French event) would work as expected.

Andrew, it should be easy to check that he's right by playing the 1700 scenario and breaking France's alliance at the start. France will be put in the Spanish alliance, which isn't right.

 

[unmerged(16417)]

It would be great if the alliance command canceled existing alliances, but this is WAD

What is WAD?

The Spanish-French alliance in 1700 is actually just the tip of the iceberg. None of the alliance commands work.

In an ideal world, alliance commands would:
a) Cancel existing alliances.
b) Make the country receiving the event join the alliance of the country named in the command (and not the other way round). So for, instance, the "Auld Alliance" event should make Scotland join France's alliance, not France join Scotland's!

I don't know if this can ever be fixed.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

WAD = working as designed. You're arguing with the design not the way it functions.

But the cases like the Scottish Auld alliance should be fixed so that on the off chance they aren't in an alliance the events will work correctly. How many of these bugged events are there?

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Answering my own question

I've compiled a list of all the use of the alliance command. Some are obviously bugs (i.e., the more powerful country is forced into an alliance with a vassal). Some are clearly right. Many I'm not too sure about and have classified accordingly.

• 
  Wrong
• HAB joins BOH alliance BOH3642
• FRA joins BRI alliance BRI3602
• HAB joins BRI alliance BRI3603
• HAB joins HUN alliance HUN3639
• BUR joins LUX alliance LUX3605
• HAB joins MLO alliance MLO3706
• HAB joins FRA alliance MLO3706
• FRA joins POL alliance POL3486
• FRA joins PRO alliance PRO3607
• ENG joins PRO alliance PRO3607
• FRA joins SCO alliance SCO3072
• TUR joins SIE alliance SIE3645
• FRA joins SPA alliance SPA3173
• FRA joins SPA alliance SPA3173
• SWE joins LIT alliance LIT3450#was probably wrong
• HAB joins LIT alliance LIT3452 #was probably wrong
• HAB joins LIT alliance LIT3453 #was probably wrong
• ENG joins HAN alliance HAN3612 #was probably wrong
• SAC joins POL alliance POL3486 #was unsure
• SAC joins POL alliance POL3501 #was unsure
• PFA joins BOH alliance BOH3643 #was probably wrong, was unsure
  
  Probably Wrong
• HOL joins ENG alliance ENG3033
  
  Unsure
• MOR joins FEZ alliance FEZ3728
• ALD joins FEZ alliance FEZ3728
• GRA joins FEZ alliance FEZ3728
  
  Prob Right
• SIE joins HUN alliance HUN3639
• PRU joins LIT alliance LIT3451
• SAC joins RUS alliance RUS3429 #was right
• HAB joins RUS alliance RUS3429 #was right
• SAC joins RUS alliance RUS3429 #was right
• HAB joins RUS alliance RUS3429 #was right
  
  Right
• PRU joins FRA alliance FRA3136
• SWE joins FRA alliance FRA3136
• SPA joins HAB alliance HAB3179
• SIE joins HUN alliance HUN3640
• DAN joins RUS alliance RUS3422
• POL joins RUS alliance RUS3422
• SAC joins RUS alliance RUS3422
• ARG joins SPA alliance SPA3716
• CAS joins SPA alliance SPA3717
• POR joins SPA alliance SPA3162
• POR joins SPA alliance SPA3163
• SHL joins SWE alliance SWE3241
• SHL joins SWE alliance SWE3241
• SHL joins SWE alliance SWE3241
• SWE joins DAN alliance DAN3304 #was wrong
• POL joins SWE alliance SWE3229 #was probably wrong, then wrong
• HAB joins SPA alliance SPA3731 #was wrong-brain freeze

I could take a wack at some of the obviously wrong ones. Any chance this could be channged?

edit: reclassified based on Jason's comments.
edit2 further reclassification of vassals.
edit3 move BOH-PFA based on Jason's arguments.

 

[unmerged(16417)]

Nice job. Quite a humdinger, isn't it?

I've been doing exactly the same thing, and agree more or less with you (though all the ones that are "probably wrong" are wrong in my opinion, with the possible exception of BOH3643).

RUS3429 (Polish succession) is also wrong. Historically, the alliance leader was Austria, which was also the more powerful country. So Saxony and Russia should join a Habsburg-led alliance.

POL3484 and POL3501 are also definitely wrong. Saxony wore the trousers in that relationship.

By the way, how might the problem be fixed? It seems like you'd have to write a whole load of follow-up events (so that event in country A caused another event in country B instructing it to create an alliance with country A). It doesn't sound like the kind of thing Paradox would be willing to implement.

Alternatively, maybe they could write a new command (???), which instructs a country to join someone else's alliance.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Holland and England is very unclear. James II was allied to France - after the Revolution England was allied with Holland.

England and Hanover isn't entirely unambiguous either. George II used British power to advance Hanover's interests versus Sweden. Still I'm stretching to make that case.

As to RUS3429, the candidate for the Polish throne was very much a Russain tool rather than an Austrian one. As such it seemed reasonable, but I'll move it.

Was Augustus II advancing Polish interests or Saxon interests when he invaded Courland. (Probably neither). If you make the case that Poland was already in an implicit alliance with Denmark and Russia, then Saxony was added to that aliance (also a stretch I admit).

I've moved some around based on your input.

Some of these have follow up events, and I think the follow up events would be easy to implement provided they use old text. However, I'd like to hear from Andrew.

An unallied trigger might help a lot too.

 

[unmerged(16417)]

Holland and England is very unclear. James II was allied to France - after the Revolution England was allied with Holland.

Because William of Orange was Dutch. He invaded England in order to bring England into the anti-French alliance he had already created.

Regarding POL3484, POL3501 and HAN3612 - In these events Poland and Hanover become vassals, so there is no question that the Saxons and English should lead the alliance.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

Originally posted by Jason Bush
Regarding POL3484, POL3501 and HAN3612 - In these events Poland and Hanover become vassals, so there is no question that the Saxons and English should lead the alliance.

You're right about that. Further re-classifications adopted. Andrew?

 

[unmerged(16417)]

BOH3643 may be OK as it is. Historically, the Bohemians were engaged in conflict with the Habsburgs, so this is more a case of the Palatinate signing up to Bohemia's agenda rather than Bohemia joining the Palatinate.

Dunno why you're so reluctant to put ENG3033 in the "definitely wrong" section. William never had much interest in England except as an ally in his war against France. Check out, for instance, the following encyclopedia reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_III_of_England

 

[unmerged(11633)]

I'm not sure I agree that the alliance command is broken. Particularly with regard to events characterised as "wrong". The alliance command is a two way thing.

Lets imagine countries A,B, C and D. A is in alliance with B, as alliance leader.

If country A gets an event with

command = { type = alliance which = C}

Then C will join A's alliance with B, and A will be alliance leader.

THE SAME THING will happen if country c gets an event

command = { type = alliance which = A }

The event will make C join A's alliance, which will still be led by A. The overall effect will be the same.

If both A and C are in different alliances, the alliance command will have no affect.

The only time a different result will occur is if A and C are not in ANY alliances. In this case, the only difference will be the leader of the alliance.

To reiterate- If the alliance command occurs, and one nation is in an alliance and the other not, the end result will be the same no matter who gets the alliance event.

 

[unmerged(16417)]

Not true, I'm afraid. This is what the problem is all about.

From Havard's EU editing page:

command = { type = alliance which = aaa }

Adds nation with tag aaa to military alliance of the country affected by the event. Note that this will only happen if: The country receiving the event is alliance leader or unallied and country aaa is unallied.


In other words, a country which receives an alliance command will not join someone else's alliance. The other country has to be unallied, in which case it will join the alliance of the country affected by the event.

You can test this yourself. Start playing the Age of Enlightenment scenario as Spain. Before the Spanish succession event comes along in November, cancel your alliance with France (you will need to make peace with Austria first).

If what you said were true, then the event would make Spain join the French-led alliance. In fact, nothing at all happens, just like Havard says.

 

[unmerged(11633)]

It would seem that indeed you are correct. The alliance command is only one way, not two way as I incorrectly remembered. o

 

[AndrewT]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
You're right about that. Further re-classifications adopted. Andrew?

Still waiting for the proposal to settle down and solidify.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

OK, I'll look into the script for the ones that I have classified as 'Wrong' and post suggested changes. Basically I'll try to move the alliance command to an event for the other party in the alliance.

If it were my call I'd have PFA as the alliance leader over BOH, although there is clearly a good case for the opposite.

As to William III the question in my mind is whether Dutch or English interests were dominant in the War of the English Sucession (1688-97). I think there is a fair case that the English interestes dominated, although given the choice I'd say it was the Dutch.

I'm trying to limit the 'wrong'category to cases that are entirely unambiguous.

 

[unmerged(16417)]

Here you go Isaac. Beat you to it. Hope my conclusions tally with yours.


A) The following events are definitely wrong, but the events can be fixed by moving the alliance command to the right country:

BOH3642, BRI3602, BRI3603, LUX3605, MLO3706, POL3486, PRO3607, SPA3173, HAN3612, POL3486, POL3501, BOH3643

Delete all the alliance commands in all the above events. The following alliance commands then need to be added to the following events:

HAB3187

command = { type =alliance which = BOH }

FRA3321

command = { type = alliance which = BRI }

HAB3329

command = { type = alliance which = BRI }

BUR3599

command = { type = alliance which = LUX }

HAB3181 (Action A)

command = { type = alliance which = MLO }

FRA3718 (Action A)

command = { type = alliance which = MLO }

FRA3734

command = { type = alliance which = POL }

FRA3324

command = { type = alliance which = PRO }

FRA3130

command = { type = alliance which = SPA }

ENG3314

command = { type = alliance which = PRO }

ENG3038

command = { type = alliance which = HAN }

HAB3200

command = { type = alliance which = SPA }

SAC3627

command = { type = alliance which = POL }

SAC3737

command = { type = alliance which = POL }

PFA3665

command = { type = alliance which = BOH }

B) The alliance commands no longer exist in the following events in my version (the latest beta). Isaac must be looking at an earlier version of the game:

HUN3639
SIE3645

C) The following events have been mistakenly classified as wrong in Isaac's list. They should not be changed:

DAN3304

This event causes SWE to join DAN (not DAN to join SWE, as Isaac wrote). So the event is the right way round.

SPA3731

This is triggered by the "Rule the Habsburg Empire from Madrid" event, so naturally Spain should be alliance leader. In any case, Spain is by far the more powerful country.

SWE3229

Also correct. Poland becomes a vassal of Sweden in this event, so Sweden must lead the alliance.

D) That leaves the following problem events (mercifully few).

SCO3072
LIT3450
LIT3452
LIT3453
ENG3033

There are three possible options:

a) Leave them as they are.

Don't like this idea much. Very silly for France to join an alliance led by Scotland, or for the Habsburgs to join an alliance led by Lithuania. The idea of Holland joining an alliance led by England is not so preposterous, though it is actually not correct from the historical point of view.

b) Write a handful of new events, which would relocate the alliance commands to the right country.

This would be the ideal solution, though I seem to recall Andrew saying there would be no new events. (Note that there would not need to be any new text: the event description could be borrowed entirely from the preceding event. E.g., after Scotland has signed up to the Auld Alliance, France would just get to read the text for The Auld Alliance event, and then it would simply have to press a button: "Splendid!" "Create Axis" or whatever.)

c) Delete the alliance commands from these events.

This would not be the end of the world.

If it were my call I'd have PFA as the alliance leader over BOH, although there is clearly a good case for the opposite.

In PFA3665, which is triggered by BOH3643, Bohemia becomes a vassal of the Palatinate, which answers our question for us. I have included this one in the list of wrong 'uns.

As to William III the question in my mind is whether Dutch or English interests were dominant in the War of the English Sucession (1688-97). I think there is a fair case that the English interests dominated

No doubt about this one. William lived in Holland and became notorious for putting Dutch interests first. The war was so unpopular in England that in 1701 parliament passed a law to stop the king starting wars without parliament's consent.

The alliance against Louis was set up by William of Orange in 1686, before the English joined it (this happens in the game too: Dutch event 3510). The war is usually called the War of the Grand Alliance. Never heard it called the War of English Succession before (though it's also known as the Nine Years War, the War of the League of Augsburg, and King William's War).

 

[unmerged(6159)]

I agree with Jason.

Originally posted by Jason Bush

B) The alliance commands no longer exist in the following events in my version (the latest beta). Isaac must be looking at an earlier version of the game:

HUN3639
SIE3645

Yes I have the official version 1.07. So I guess it depends on whether those events will be staying or not. Any idea?

C) The following events have been mistakenly classified as wrong in Isaac's list. They should not be changed:

DAN3304

This event causes SWE to join DAN (not DAN to join SWE, as Isaac wrote). So the event is the right way round.

SPA3731

This is triggered by the "Rule the Habsburg Empire from Madrid" event, so naturally Spain should be alliance leader. In any case, Spain is by far the more powerful country.

SWE3229

Also correct. Poland becomes a vassal of Sweden in this event, so Sweden must lead the alliance.

Agreed.

D) That leaves the following problem events (mercifully few).

SCO3072
LIT3450
LIT3452
LIT3453
ENG3033

There are three possible options:

a) Leave them as they are.

Don't like this idea much. Very silly for France to join an alliance led by Scotland, or for the Habsburgs to join an alliance led by Lithuania. The idea of Holland joining an alliance led by England is not so preposterous, though it is actually not correct from the historical point of view.

b) Write a handful of new events, which would relocate the alliance commands to the right country.

This would be the ideal solution, though I seem to recall Andrew saying there would be no new events. (Note that there would not need to be any new text: the event description could be borrowed entirely from the preceding event. E.g., after Scotland has signed up to the Auld Alliance, France would just get to read the text for The Auld Alliance event, and then it would simply have to press a button: "Splendid!" "Create Axis" or whatever.)

c) Delete the alliance commands from these events.

This would not be the end of the world.

I would think that it would be simple enough to add events to handle these with the same text. Clearly a big improvement over the current situation.

Thanks for chasing this down and double checking my stuff.

I still think that one can make a decent case about the William III. The war was none too popular in the Netherlands either. However, my preference would be to change it as you've suggested.

I googled it, and 'War of the English Sucession' (which is what I've usually seen it called in books) seems to be a rather trendy term for it.

This site think that's an unfair name, but ultimately that's wahat the war was about. It was, after all precipitated by William's conquest of Britain, which preceded the incursions into the Palatinate.

edit: Although I note that that site seems to have forgotten about the battle of the Dunes and Elizabeths interventions in the Netherlands.

 

[unmerged(16417)]

But what about FEZ3728, eh?

As far as I can see, this event does not refer to a real historical event, just to the general hacked-offed-ness among the Moors who had been expelled from Spain, many of whom settled in Fez.

Anyway, need to give Fez something to do.

 

[unmerged(16417)]

Still waiting for the proposal to settle down and solidify.

Any action on this, Andrew? The proposal has settled down.