What nation would you try first in the new expansion (IN)

[unmerged(37697)]

I don't think Paradox will do that much for Bohemia. But personally I think the Hussite Wars could be a grand example of the new rebel system.

It would be correct historic if the Hussites get good tech and firepower units. A czech culture unit named *-* with high firepower, should be easy and would be perfect to have in the game.

Well, the English get longbows, &c.

I just thought it'd be good if one or two units could be added for any country which controls certain Bohemian provinces (so, obviously Bohemia historically).

Makes sense, and means they could hold their own against larger Hungarian and Imperial armies.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

:rofl:

I will play with England the day before Henry dies and hope he lives to his 80's

I have a feeling Henry and Timur will be the most popular historical monarchs.

 

[TrojanAC]

granada ... the same procedure as every time

 

[unmerged(37697)]

Okay, regarding England:

Now, if you compare this map with an EU3 map of the area, you can see things aren't ideally suited with regards to the Aquitaine region.

However, assuming no provinces have been added to that region in In Nomine (which is a possibility, as it seems Cambray has been added in the north), England should begin with Calais, Gascogne & Armagnac.

They should have cores on those three provinces, as should France.

England shouldn't have cores on Normandy, because going by the EU3 system of losing a core after fifty years of non-ownership, England hasn't owned Normandy since the thirteenth century.

Cores on Normandy (both provinces, obviously) can pop up in the history files with the advent of Henry V's invasion of 1415.

I realise that this means an English player has no natural CB on France in 1399, but frankly, this was the case. They were at peace, and England had been the aggressor anyway, so it should in fact be France who has the CB (due to her cores).

With Henry V, the situation obviously changes a great deal, with the final cores on Normandy not being lost 'till 1475 (Edward IV), and Calais with Elizabeth I.

It'll be very interesting to see how Paradox model the Anglo-French situation (owners, cores, warfare, personal union, &c.) from 1415 - 1453.

I hope they take a leaf out of the AGCEEP book, instead of leaving us with a very generic, very poorly-modelled setup akin to vanilla EU2.

I for one can't wait.

EDIT: Oh yes, and Wales should own Gwynedd, and be at war with England.

 

[The Witch-King]

Some French minor would be fun. First kick out the English, then fight for the French crown!

 

[unmerged(80814)]

We don't have Calais on that map?

 

[Earl Uhtred]

I think it's hidden behind 'Burg...' - see that dashed line scraping the coast?

 

[joriandrake]

hum hum...provence and dauphine and teutons (no livonian order) look interesting (aswell my own homeland )

 

[unmerged(80814)]

I think it's hidden behind 'Burg...' - see that dashed line scraping the coast?

Ah, your right.

 

[unmerged(56754)]

Although I am not Mandead I think I might be able to answer your question. In 1399 I suppose England should be in controle of Gascony (basically the French coast towards the bay of Biscay).

For the strongest position of England in France I would have two contenders:

1422 (the death year of Henry V):

And 1429 (the highpoint of the Anglo-Burgundian push towards southern France):

I hope this gives you a clearer picture.

While your maps show land owned, im sue England 1422 was much stronger, having just had three campaigns that enhilated the Frenc Armies, and mere months from inheriting the throne.

 

[unmerged(56754)]

We don't have Calais on that map?

We do, but Calais was a very small territory we owned, basically just the city and some surrounding hills, it's nowhere near as big a EUIII made it.

 

[unmerged(8915)]

i think many of you are missing the point of this whole english inheritance. and that is the effect of historical currents.

just as germany would have been unified with or without bismarck or the aztecs defeated with or without cortez

france would have been an independant nation. with or without joan of arc. i think there are tipping points where the fate hangs in the balance and a personage of genius can indeed tilt history in this or that direction. but for england to rule france and have it a core part of its realm, the year wouldve have to be around 1000 at the latest

 

[Neblogai]

hum hum...provence and dauphine and teutons (no livonian order) look interesting (aswell my own homeland )

Livonian Order was incorporated into Teutonic Order much earlier that that- it happened right after Saulės battle in 1236

 

[truth is life]

Landislav: Well, I think the English kings objective was to be the kings of France--and rule England too, as it happens. It would have been less a matter of a English France than a French England. For an actual parallel, think about Scotland and England. Even though Scottish kings inherited the crown of England, Great Britain was more English than Scottish, precisely because it was more populous and wealthy, just as France was in the early 1400s compared to England.

 

[Flamarial]

Joseon.

 

[jordarkelf]

i think many of you are missing the point of this whole english inheritance. and that is the effect of historical currents.

just as germany would have been unified with or without bismarck or the aztecs defeated with or without cortez

france would have been an independant nation. with or without joan of arc. i think there are tipping points where the fate hangs in the balance and a personage of genius can indeed tilt history in this or that direction. but for england to rule france and have it a core part of its realm, the year wouldve have to be around 1000 at the latest

Doubtful, really. It is not implausible that Spain never would have unified, or that Scotland and England never would have become one country, or that nations like Burgundy and Savoy would have remained independent. Or for that matter that nations like Portugal and Poland would have disappeared of fthe map forgood.

Nationalism is a 19th-century concept, and had England held on to France, there's no reason to really believe that France would ever have resurfaced as anything else than a part of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom of England and France would not be the only nation with two very disparate parts and population in history.

 

[Vordus]

umm. How can we play as Byzantinium? Are they setting a new early date ?

 

[jordarkelf]

Yes. 1399 is the new start date.

 

[esbenmf]

English kings were more French (Norman) than English in the 12th.-14th. century. For along time the main parts (most populous and wealth) of the royal domain under the English crown were the northern and western parts of what is now considered France. So it is entirely possible that a combined English-French crown would have spent the majority of its time in the French lands. Not that England would have disappeared though, Austria and Hungary, Norway and Denmark, Scotland, Ireland and England are all (if not independent) considered different entities.

Esben

 

[Filip de Norre]

i think many of you are missing the point of this whole english inheritance. and that is the effect of historical currents.

just as germany would have been unified with or without bismarck or the aztecs defeated with or without cortez

france would have been an independant nation. with or without joan of arc. i think there are tipping points where the fate hangs in the balance and a personage of genius can indeed tilt history in this or that direction. but for england to rule france and have it a core part of its realm, the year wouldve have to be around 1000 at the latest

No

Some events in history would have happened, no matter what, more or less

A world spanning roman religion (christian) would have evolved sooner or later, a lot of other religions were on their way in Rome, and could've been state religion, Aurelian tried to make the Sun Worshipping state religion, AFAIK.

Protestantism would've happened because of the strength of the church in the Holy Empire, and the expanding political and economic indenpendence in northern Germany like Hessen, Saxony, Hansa and Netherlands.

A unified Spain seems unavoidable in my opinion, while France easily could've been english, or by english king. The king of England would have had it as his title, but sooner or later France would break off, with an english dynasty. But you're very correct in one thing. Joan of Arc didn't change the war.
Bertrand du Guesclin was a lot more important to the war effort. The weakness of english kings and the balance of power, left nothing but a victory for France in the end.