Unrealistic conquests?

[Anthropoid]

The game you're describing is Crusader Kings. It deals with a different era, but does a nice job capturing the more personal nature of politics in Europe's feudal age. It's not as well polished as EUIII, but still a lot of fun.

DamN YOU Gardel! I had just about concluded that I could forego any more game purchases for six-months or so!! Now you've planted the seed of another poison apple in my mind :rofl:

Or how about: Visigoths invading and conquesting all of Iberia!? I was astounded when I saw that on the Wiki site for "Castille" or some such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain#History

After a long and hard conquest, the Iberian Peninsula became a region of the Roman Empire known as Hispania. During the early Middle Ages it came under Germanic rule but later was conquered by Muslim invaders. Through a very long and fitful process, the Christian kingdoms in the north gradually rolled back Muslim rule, finally extinguishing its last remnant in Granada in 1492, the same year Columbus reached the Americas. A global empire began which saw Spain become the strongest kingdom in Europe and the leading world power in the 16th century and first half of the 17th century.

First some pagans from Italy come along and conquer the pagans of Iberia, then some German pagans come down and conquer the Italian pagans. Then you get some Jesus-freeks somehow spreading their influence from all the way over there in Jerusalem . . . then along come some Muhammed-guys who conquer the whole place for a while. Then finally you get "The Spanish" back in control of "their country!" :wacko:

So then what they do? They head off to places that were as relatively remote then as Mars could be for the next generation, and (at sword point) force some other pagans to hand over their gold and also become Jesus-freeks.

If I did not know that that was real history, it certainly wouldn't seem like a very realistic sequence of conquests to me!

 

[unmerged(134218)]

Then finally you get "The Spanish" back in control of "their country!

There was a debate over if the Moors were in fact "Spanish". Most people believed that the Moors weren't Spanish, since you had to have been Christian to be Spanish, and the Moors were Muslim. The argument for the Moors being Spanish was because they lived in Spain, and thus were Spanish that way.

 

[Kyoumen]

That is, needless to say, a pretty racist "debate". Of course they were Spanish, or at least as Spanish as any Aragonese was.

 

[unmerged(134218)]

That is, needless to say, a pretty racist "debate". Of course they were Spanish, or at least as Spanish as any Aragonese was.

Of course it was. I should clarify though that it was an intellectual debate held held between the 16th century to 19th century (I don't remember the exact year though). Not in our modern day, and not on this modern forum.

 

[unmerged(76802)]

Were the little Christian 'Spanish' kingdoms remnants of the Visigoth kingdom?

 

[unmerged(39280)]

It's not like legitimacy isn't modeled as is. Two Portuguese provinces with no claim means eight points of infamy and higher stability costs and no cores and stuff - its not like its an inheritance or even a claimed throne.

That said, countries do expand ahistorically fast, but IMO its more fun this way.

These are good points actually.
Legitimacy is modeled in the game but conquest can still be easily made against any legitimacy - even AI can do it. In real life in pre-revolutionary Europe making conquests without at least something, any excuse, even a lame one to back up your claims was hardly thinkable. In game as nation X you can decide one day to declare war to country Y thousands of miles away - without any legal reason - take half of its lands and the only penalty is a few points of infamy/reputation.
The lack of cores will result in what ? Revolt risk for a few decades but it isnt that hard to keep a few thousands of troops and still make profit of your conquest - in reality keeping thousands of troops as occupation force in overseas province for years was not workable for most european countries in 1400s, if done going bankrupt more likely than making any profit.
Otoh the game would lost it simplicity and appeal to many players if all these things were simulated. You find ahistorically fast expansion "fun" and so do most of the players. They want to conquer half of continent in under a century because its fun, people who dont share the view can play Magna Mundi or wait for a more "hardcore" version of Paradox.

 

[unmerged(150720)]

There was a debate over if the Moors were in fact "Spanish". Most people believed that the Moors weren't Spanish, since you had to have been Christian to be Spanish, and the Moors were Muslim. The argument for the Moors being Spanish was because they lived in Spain, and thus were Spanish that way.

I think they were Spaniards, but that Arabs also made up a part of the Moorish Iberian population.

Were the little Christian 'Spanish' kingdoms remnants of the Visigoth kingdom?

Indeed not. They lasted very shortly and didn't set up a track after them like the Romans and Moors. Both in Italy and Iberia the Visigoths ruled shortly. The Frankish Germanic people however assimilated, but gave name to the nation of France, but Franks and Visigoths weren't the same, but were in the same racial group.

 

[Tim O]

Oh it does. It would look a bit weird but maybe justifiable in the 18th century when Britain was a major naval power in need of bases all over the place, but in 1414, when England was primarily known for its ability to export sheep-derived produce, it's completely ludicrous.

In fact, early game English predominance, where it almost invariably munches Scotland and most of Ireland while amassing naval possessions like this in the first few decades, is something which it would be good for modders and future patches to fix.

Henry V crushed France despite being greatly outnumbered. France is lucky he died young or they would have been under the English boot for decades to come.

 

[King Nothing]

In game as nation X you can decide one day to declare war to country Y thousands of miles away - without any legal reason - take half of its lands and the only penalty is a few points of infamy/reputation.

That was the case a couple of months ago. With HttT you could easily go over the BB limit with just 1 war like that. And from what I have seen so far a country going over the limit will fall very hard..

 

[unmerged(48037)]

That is, needless to say, a pretty racist "debate". Of course they were Spanish, or at least as Spanish as any Aragonese was.

They weren't. They even didn't call that land "Spain". For them it was Al-Andalus.

You can say that they were "Spanish" after centuries living in the Iberian Peninsula, but neither their culture nor their ethnic origins were Spanish.

But back on topic... The Arab invasion conquered most of the Iberian peninsula in just 7 years, and they kept most of that land untouched for centuries. I bet that if something like that happened in game, people would complain that it is "unreal" and "not historical".

 

[unmerged(48037)]

Were the little Christian 'Spanish' kingdoms remnants of the Visigoth kingdom?

They were the Visigoths who escaped north, hiding in high mountain valleys. That's why each king of those little kingdoms wanted to become king of Spain, because they traced their roots to the Visigoth Spanish kingdom.

 

[cucurbitulae]

They weren't. They even didn't call that land "Spain". For them it was Al-Andalus.

You can say that they were "Spanish" after centuries living in the Iberian Peninsula, but neither their culture nor their ethnic origins were Spanish.

But back on topic... The Arab invasion conquered most of the Iberian peninsula in just 7 years, and they kept most of that land untouched for centuries. I bet that if something like that happened in game, people would complain that it is "unreal" and "not historical".

I would like to add the fact that, throughout history, it is the military and ruling elite that moves significantly, rather than masses of people. Today, people living in asia minor are called Turks, and they speak a language with strong ties to Kazakh, Uzbek, etc. while also sharing very ancient words with modern Mongolian.
However, this is more the result of assimilation of ethnic greeks, hittites, armenians, arabs, etc. residing on this land, than that of moving Turks from central Asia to Anatolia.
In short, Spaniards in southern Iberia adopted a different culture, and even religion, but I believe they are the descendants of Spanish (or Iberians, whatever).

 

[unmerged(150720)]

They weren't. They even didn't call that land "Spain". For them it was Al-Andalus.

You can say that they were "Spanish" after centuries living in the Iberian Peninsula, but neither their culture nor their ethnic origins were Spanish.

But back on topic... The Arab invasion conquered most of the Iberian peninsula in just 7 years, and they kept most of that land untouched for centuries. I bet that if something like that happened in game, people would complain that it is "unreal" and "not historical".

How do you know? Ethnic Arabs are only Arabs from the Arabian Peninsula, however all Muslim lands in the Middle East unless Iran, Turkey and those lands more far away are considered Arab. I think that most Egyptians has been Coptic before adapting the "Arab" into their ethnic role. Also very few of Turkeys population is actually ethnic Turks. It might have been 100.000 Turks that moved to Anatolia, and there they conquered, converted and assimilated by raping (Cheers for us Vikings.) or be nice to the people to make them prefer Turks more than their earlier rulers.

I would like to add the fact that, throughout history, it is the military and ruling elite that moves significantly, rather than masses of people. Today, people living in asia minor are called Turks, and they speak a language with strong ties to Kazakh, Uzbek, etc. while also sharing very ancient words with modern Mongolian.
However, this is more the result of assimilation of ethnic greeks, hittites, armenians, arabs, etc. residing on this land, than that of moving Turks from central Asia to Anatolia.
In short, Spaniards in southern Iberia adopted a different culture, and even religion, but I believe they are the descendants of Spanish (or Iberians, whatever).

Cheers for a Turk who admits his roots! I totally agree with you. The Arabs in Muslim Iberia has probably been very few, maybe 10k-50k. The rest of the population was probably or Carthagian, Roman or Spanish origin. Actually a lot of North Africans has Roman roots due to the land that veterans were given by the Rome. I guess most of the lands conquered by Rome has Roman roots.

 

[cucurbitulae]

Cheers for a Turk who admits his roots! I totally agree with you.

You're welcome. I am well aware that I could be called Greek, or Armenian, or Persian, depending on circumstances. However, I am happy being an Anatolian who speaks Turkish and who more or less adopted a culture combining Central Asia with Middle East and Balkans sitting on Ancient Greek land. :wacko:

This approach I find is very healthy and can lead to really interesting conclusions. Today, the world map gives us plenty of insights about abnormal cultural shifts.

Such as: Arabs being oversuccessive in Northern Africa, Turkish identity moving from central asia to Anatolia and even pushing into balkans, Hungarians sitting in Central Europe, a whole European continent beliveing the same God, All northwestern mediterranean nations speaking a very similar language, etc. Russia, "Russifying" enormously vast territories in around Urals and further.....

IMHO, there is no such thing as "unrealistic".

 

[unmerged(76802)]

One thing I really want is for people to stop responding to "this is completely unrealistic" with "OH SO YOU JUST WANT THE GAME TO RUN ON RAILS AND NEVER EVER GO DIFFERENTLY".

Way to strawman, guys.

 

[Hidden Legend]

Lets talk about realistic problems. 1414 Henry V had just come to the throne and wanted France. He had no interest in Portugal.

At earlier points than this Henry IV could not project his power beyond England at all. As a usurper his claim to the throne was weak and questioned by rebelions in Wales. His ability to raise cash in parliament was difficult because of its refusal to grant him any subsidies for war against anyone, or even run his court. He had to call the last Feudal summons in English history to go to war in Scotland. They avoided battle and he lost his money having to pay for the summoned troops beyond the requested dates.

The differance between Henery IV and his son is that one usurped the throne. The other inherited. Henry V was a warrior because of his fathers troubles requiring all his sons to act as military commanders. In the decisive battle against the welsh Henry V had an arrow in his cheakbone and nearly died. He also had greater legitamacy and the authority it brought. Executing the first rebellion leaders against his reign helped.

Is it plausable for a King with a weak claime to be able to recover stability, unite his factions and choose to conquer land in a throne where his sister is married to the founder of a new dynasty that he supported. The intent of those dyastic marriages were to prevent England being countered in France in the first place.

France could not do anything early on because Charles VI was madder than his descendants Henry VI and George III. It was an afflication that had come into the royal house through the marriage of one of the earlier Valois Kings to the main Capetian line of the House of Bourbon who had three close relatives being mad. At various times Charles VI was subject to an unstable regency council for his whole reign either by his Queen or his Uncles and cousins. He had several sons who died and was a target for conquest as there was no consolidating plan and his regents were fighting each other, there were rebelions also with great difficulties in Paris.

Feudal Monarchy should have cultural penalties at large distances. Even Naval or land power should not be the ultimate factor in being able to ave Castile conquer the Crimea before the reformation reaches its peak. Some of the western factions are so overpowered for the later advantages that their energies are spent conquering anything with a CB to pass the time until search for the new world has become available.

I feel that factions like Grandada should gain a modifier that means when they have one or two provinces discipline hardens and manpower is multiplied to make it difficult for Castile just to walk over them. It took an exceptional ruler in Ferdinand II to finish the reconquista and take Italy.

I know that once a province is captured or enough cultural regions that accepted becomes an option but at large distances withough cores or higher tech patriotism should become a major factor.

Suggestions, the Union thing I suggested earlier would be a good representation of difficulties by bringing regions under union power they could still demonstrate difficulties in assymilating represented by Revolt risk, stability issues, low relations, difficulties with changing policies and tasks. It would add a dimension the game prevent blobbing and make world conquest an exceptional but more entertaining challenge. It does not have to be union, it could be vassalisation with diplomacy requests through magistrait at the capital to implement changes to bring into allignment with your state.

I dont want to repeat history I want to run into practical complications regardless of what the game attempts it must run into the same difficulties. Rebelion, poor finance, distance difficulties, practical cultural difficulties. Instant rebelion following political annex.

If England want to conquer Georgia and it is 1460 and they have conquered nothing else with no new vassals but have lost their regions in France then they should run into massive revolts. It is far away. The locals lead a different way of life. Few English speak the language so authority is low. The navy needs to run a convoy system to keep communications open as such ships need to patrol the route between England and the Black sea. Neighbours want to conquer the region so they declare war seeing the difficulties. High rate of mortality to soldiers in the region due to unfriendly land. The need for represive legislation to gain maneuverbility causing lower finance and higher revolt risk but greater troop support capabilities.

 

[Baron Jukaga]

I think the cost of a province not connected to the nation receiving it should cost a lot more, something like +50% to discourage this kind of behaviour by the AI.

Now this idea I like. I would put a crimp in my conquests of India when I have no land connection but the benefit outweighs the loss.

 

[Evans]

I was also thinking, how exactly would Henry V expect to see any return from holdings in Portugal that didn't get lost through; defiance, corruption, theft, piracy and overheads involved with its collection? With new possessions in general, it should be a lot harder to extract wealth from them. Remove the economic reasons for silly conquests in the game and turn them into faraway burdens that are nothing but trouble and we'll have a sense of history Oh, and someone tell the AI about the new setup too...

 

[Hidden Legend]

I was also thinking, how exactly would Henry V expect to see any return from holdings in Portugal that didn't get lost through; defiance, corruption, theft, piracy and overheads involved with its collection? With new possessions in general, it should be a lot harder to extract wealth from them. Remove the economic reasons for silly conquests in the game and turn them into faraway burdens that are nothing but trouble and we'll have a sense of history Oh, and someone tell the AI about the new setup too...

This man knows his beans.

 

[Baron Jukaga]

Indeed it is ridiculous, Morocco alone could mobilise millions of soldiers, yes millions of them.

Laughable. Show one good source about these 'millions'.