Why is Austria united and where is Ladislaus the Posthumous?

[Me_]

Until 1457 Austrian lands were divided between the Albertine and Leopoldian lines of the Habsburg dynasty. Lower Austria was in 1444 formally ruled by Ladislaus the Posthumous who in-game exists only as an event-born king of Hungary (he was also later King of Bohemia which is not included in the game either).

I know that Ladislaus was a kid in 1444, but the way he's implemented is weird to me plus if not for his sudden death Austria could end up much different indeed, which is always pre-decided in the game.

 

[Dutchman251]

It's right in the 1453 start. They probably made it so for 'balance' reasons - that is, they want a strong Austria

 

[Sparticulous]

They could probably make it separate with the kid having low health score with a high likelihood of dying. But They did split up burgundy since it wasn't truly united either. Same should happen to Austria.

 

[Trin Tragula]

Saxony, Bavaria, Austria, (I probably forgot someone more, I haven't got the map in front of me) are all states where we show a number of branches of the same dynasty as one tag in 1444.
This decision goes further back than my time here but I imagine it's to have the long term development of these areas where you see them act as the power factors they are supposed to be long term.
I can certainly see an argument for adding more detail here and represent the areas split under branches of the same dynasty in 1444. Still this way we have more medium/strong powers around and even without this the HRE setup is probably the most detailed setup in the game.

 

[MiniaAr]

Well it does make sense, as Friedrich III, the ruler of Inner Austria (in game Styria) had already inherited the lands of his uncle, Frederick IV (in game Tyrol and Breisgau/Sundgau) and was the regent for his nephew Ladislas the Posthumous (in game Austria without any other cores) who also was king of Hungary and Bohemia, at least nominally.

Ladislas Posthumous never really had power in Austria power, and neither in Hungary for that matter. Only a bit more in Bohemia but he died too young for it to really matter.

The statu quo is fine in my opinion, but that said, if more details is needed, the following setup could prove more historical without hurting balance (too much):

• Independant Styria, also Holy Roman Empire, with Friedrich III at his head.
  
• Styria would also hold Tyrol and further Austria (Breisgau/Sundgau) either directly or in personal union (Burgundian type of division) under Friedrich III.
• Austria proper under regency for Ladislas the Posthumous, with Friedrich III as regent. In order not to break balance, Austria should start as a Styrian vassal.
• Modify the "Unite the House of Habsburg" decision so that later on, if Tirol, Styria or Austria is still rule by an Hapsburg and has the other two either in PU or as a vassal, then everything is inherited, cores are granted and Austria is (re)formed. The decision would be normally passed by Styria, but this could make a nice achievement for the other two to pass it. I suggest 1490 as a base date, to reflect when Maximilian I united all Habsbourg duchies.

This split would be more accurate historically, and won't break balance in MP as we saw it with the Burgundian example: breaking BUR in small countries made it stronger, not weaker.