• 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.

Tinto Talks #70 - 2nd of July 2025

Hello, and welcome to another Tinto Talks, the happy Wednesdays where we talk about Europa Universalis V!

Today, we will talk about another very impactful early-game situation: the Hundred Years’ War!

Historically, the war started when, in May 1337, Philip VI confiscated the Duchy of Aquitaine from Edward III of England, for the reason of breaching his obligations as a vassal, which was responded to by Edward III claiming the throne of France by the rights of his mother, Isabella of France - the situation was way more complicated than this, so let’s leave the historical events here.

In our game, a couple of months after the start of the game (so, in June 1337), this event will trigger to France:
1. Robert de Artois.jpg

2. Robert de Artois.jpg

3. Robert de Artois.jpg

While this is the English point of view:
4. Robert de Artois.jpg

5. Robert de Artois.jpg

6. Robert de Artois.jpg

If the historical options are followed (which is set to always happen to AI countries), this will happen:
The Crown of France.jpg

And it will also trigger the situation:
HYW TT.jpg

HYW Panel.jpg

HYW Map.jpg

The starting situation of the Hundred Years’ War, with the French and English subjects. You can notice the striped vassals, which mean that these are disloyal subjects.

As you see, each contender has its own set of objectives:
English Victory Conditions.png

French Victory Conditions.jpg

You can also see that there’s a Strength comparison:
England Strength.jpg

France Strength.jpg

Note: Numbers are a matter of balance, so please consider them WIP.

With the situation and claims in place, it’s just a matter of time before one of the sides declares war on the other:
The Throne of France.png

CB Defenf the Throne of France.jpg

War Declaration.jpg

Something interesting is that each war is considered a ‘phase’ of the situation, so until it ends, any war between France and England will be considered ‘the 1st Phase’, ‘the 2nd Phase’, and so on:
Phases.jpg

The Situation panel will also refresh when the war starts, so you can quickly check there everything related to it:
War Panel.jpg

Let’s talk now about the actions. There’s a common action that any of the sides can do, if the war has lasted for longer than 4 years, that requests the Pope to enforce a white peace among the contenders:
Request Papal Delegates.jpg

The most important are those related to the French subjects; the objective for France will be to rein them in and have them contribute to the war effort in the conflict phases, while for England, it will be about convincing them to abandon the French king in the peace phases:
Grant Subject Titles.jpg


Influence French Subject.jpg

The French subjects have their own gameplay and actions, related to their relationship with the French sovereign, and if they stay loyal to them, or not:
Subject Actions1.jpg

Subject Actions2.jpg

Subject Actions3.jpg

Subject Actions4.jpg

Subject Actions5.jpg

So, at the end of the day, one of the contenders will probably be strong enough to defeat the other. In the case of France, it’s straightforward: No more independent English presence in the continent. In the case of England, beside pure conquest, the ‘Claim of Throne of France’ peace goal requests:
  • England (or their subjects) must control more than 15% of the ownable locations in the French Region
  • England must control the capital of France
The cost of this treaty also depends on 2 factors:
  • A base cost
  • A fluctuating cost based entirely on the relative strength between the two countries. So, a stronger England would inevitably make this peace treaty option somewhat cheaper.

And that’s it on the mechanical part of the situation; but there are also a bunch of events, both random and historical, that are dependent on it:
Scots King.jpg

Mercenaries.png

Jacquerie.png

Jeanne dArc.png

Jeanne dArc2.png

And that’s all for today! We will come back on Friday, as we will talk in Tinto Flavour about France!

And also remember, you can wishlist Europa Universalis V now! Cheers!
 
  • 106Love
  • 96Like
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Will there be alt-history content for Joan of Arc surviving past what she did historically, and her trial in England? Or how about that her best friend ended up becoming Frances most notorious serial killer in history? Or how about the fact that she had an honor guard of Scotsmen?

Will there be any chances for the Scottish War of Independence to become fused with the Hundred Years War? I figure there are a lot of scenarios where the French or the English end up officially joining that war.
I hope there are a few events for France, Scotland and England about Scotland's role in the war. As for most of the 100 years war Scotland was France's most stalwart ally.

I think France should get events if things are going poorly against England to offer Scotland money in return for them invading England. Historically this happened on numerous occasions including in 1346, 1385, 1415 and in other years.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I hope there are a few events for France, Scotland and England about Scotland's role in the war. As for most of the 100 years war Scotland was France's most stalwart ally.

I think France should get events if things are going poorly against England to offer Scotland money in return for them invading England. Historically this happened on numerous occasions including in 1346, 1385, 1415 and in other years.
Tbh I hope this serves more as a "basis" to introduce more convoluted alliance mechanics and diplomatic interactions that aren't limited to THIS war. All the "late feudalism shenanigans" belongs within the situation to me. But the papal states intervening or bribe for invasion would be MUCH better as base game mechanic imo. (with an eventual button in the situation that shortcuts to the actual interaction to make it feel more alive)
 
Too complicated to portray (it was even so complicated in real life that one could argue that the real reason behind the start of the war was this double status); in our game, it is an English subject.
This is a bit of a disappointment to me. I'd hope that when deciding on going for 1337, at least in part because of the 100 years war, special consideration would have been made to try and make it possible to portray the sort of feudal arrangements that helped to instigate said war. Otherwise you might as well have started the game a little later.

The game has the mechanics that allow that representation, yes. However, that way we would completely miss who held the real power in the Duchy, which was England, as it was governed by a Seneschal from Bordeaux, who was in charge of taxes, levies, justice, public order, etc. If we'd make it a French vassal, then its income and levies would go to France, not to England.

Feudal relationships are complicated, and since this is not a game aiming to portray late feudalism, but the transition to Early Modern states, this is an acceptable price to pay regarding historical representation and accuracy.
I mean, you say that the game isn't going to put special consideration toward this mechanic because most of the game's focus is on the early modern period, but then why start in 1337 at all? You made special mechanics for early game mechanics like the Black Plague, that don't return on the same scale in the early-modern period. You could have just had an event that rolled a dice and halved around 50% of the population in every location where the plague spread historically and used exactly the same excuse. I just don't think it holds up. It's not like there weren't examples of similar dual-allegiance arrangements well into the game's timespan, especially between France and the HRE where things could get complex in similar ways, so they'd be pretty reusable. It's not like this is the one example of a political situation like this and there are no more after say, 1400.

I'm not one of those people who goes, "Oh, why didn't they just start the game after the battle of Varna like they did in EU4?" I love the new startdate, but if you're going to say you're not going to implement things because they don't apply to most of the game, then yes, I will say why not start later? If your mechanical focus rejects the late feudal political structures, then the game's startdate should have been late enough to avoid having to depict a fairly significant portion of time when those arrangements were not uncommon.

When there are responses like this, saying that this is "not a game aiming to portray late feudalism", and also ones defending 1337 as a start date, you have to understand it makes no sense. Either you're really excited to show off the transition from feudal to modern states (Which in my mind includes having these feudal political structures to gradually remove) and are excited to show off the 100 Years War, the Western Schism, The Guelphs and Ghibbilines, and so on; or you're heavily focused on just the early-modern states period and should have a startdate in like 1450 to skip all the Feudal stuff, seeing as this is, again, "not a game aiming to portray late feudalism".

As for how it might have been done; I like the idea of allowing tags to have multiple overlords through different subject types, and to have the English-controlled duchies which were de-jure under the French crown subjects to France under one subject type. Then also make them subjects of England under another subject type. Make them disloyal to France, more loyal to England, and then have a mechanic to stop income and levies being extracted from sufficiently disloyal subjects, have a CB that France can use to enforce loyalty, and there you go, a decent representation of the political situation. It really doesn't seem like it'd be that impossible to model, but I guess you'd know better than me.

Anyway, just wanted to say I was really hoping to see the complex and interesting political situation and I'm hoping that this is actually something that's being left a little bare and will be improved substantially later. I totally get not wanting to do it just yet, when you have the whole world to focus on getting to a fun, playable state, but I do hope for major improvements to the political complexity overall as the game matures.
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 3
Reactions:
Any plans to model the civil war between the armagnac and the bourguignon ? It was one of the decisive factors for English victories under Henry V. I understand your choice not to railroad burgundy a nice way to make it possible without forcing it may to allow the French king to give burgundy (or another big appanage) to his second or third son. The situation mechanics with siding with France or England or siting the conflict out would then take over.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
If England wins the war, what will happen to the French royal family?
 
This is a bit of a disappointment to me. I'd hope that when deciding on going for 1337, at least in part because of the 100 years war, special consideration would have been made to try and make it possible to portray the sort of feudal arrangements that helped to instigate said war. Otherwise you might as well have started the game a little later.


I mean, you say that the game isn't going to put special consideration toward this mechanic because most of the game's focus is on the early modern period, but then why start in 1337 at all? You made special mechanics for early game mechanics like the Black Plague, that don't return on the same scale in the early-modern period. You could have just had an event that rolled a dice and halved around 50% of the population in every location where the plague spread historically and used exactly the same excuse. I just don't think it holds up. It's not like there weren't examples of similar dual-allegiance arrangements well into the game's timespan, especially between France and the HRE where things could get complex in similar ways, so they'd be pretty reusable. It's not like this is the one example of a political situation like this and there are no more after say, 1400.

I'm not one of those people who goes, "Oh, why didn't they just start the game after the battle of Varna like they did in EU4?" I love the new startdate, but if you're going to say you're not going to implement things because they don't apply to most of the game, then yes, I will say why not start later? If your mechanical focus rejects the late feudal political structures, then the game's startdate should have been late enough to avoid having to depict a fairly significant portion of time when those arrangements were not uncommon.

When there are responses like this, saying that this is "not a game aiming to portray late feudalism", and also ones defending 1337 as a start date, you have to understand it makes no sense. Either you're really excited to show off the transition from feudal to modern states (Which in my mind includes having these feudal political structures to gradually remove) and are excited to show off the 100 Years War, the Western Schism, The Guelphs and Ghibbilines, and so on; or you're heavily focused on just the early-modern states period and should have a startdate in like 1450 to skip all the Feudal stuff, seeing as this is, again, "not a game aiming to portray late feudalism".

As for how it might have been done; I like the idea of allowing tags to have multiple overlords through different subject types, and to have the English-controlled duchies which were de-jure under the French crown subjects to France under one subject type. Then also make them subjects of England under another subject type. Make them disloyal to France, more loyal to England, and then have a mechanic to stop income and levies being extracted from sufficiently disloyal subjects, have a CB that France can use to enforce loyalty, and there you go, a decent representation of the political situation. It really doesn't seem like it'd be that impossible to model, but I guess you'd know better than me.

Anyway, just wanted to say I was really hoping to see the complex and interesting political situation and I'm hoping that this is actually something that's being left a little bare and will be improved substantially later. I totally get not wanting to do it just yet, when you have the whole world to focus on getting to a fun, playable state, but I do hope for major improvements to the political complexity overall as the game matures.
I don't think Aquitaine's status is important enough to worry about right now. I suppose they can fix it in a future patch or DLC.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
While I do understand the reasoning about not scripting Burgundy, this all but ensures European history going in completely divergent direction.

I hope at least rise of Netherlands will be scripted to occur regardless of who is controlling the territory.
The Netherlands is a different story; as one of the 'historical winners' of the period, it is a country that can be formed dynamically by any country with one of the cultures of the region, and it has historical flavour content attached to it. We'll talk about it in a future Tinto Flavour.
 
  • 23Like
  • 3
  • 2Love
Reactions:
@Pavía what happens to vassals England has asked to be neutral in the conflict in case the English win? Do they become independent or do they still remain vassals of France (which is now in PU under England)?
They would still be subjects of France, which is a country that England now would have to manage through the Personal Unions mechanics.
 
  • 18Like
  • 3
Reactions:
I think having a single fixed Jeanne d'Arc event is too much railroading.

It was actually not unusual in that age for commoners, often women, to profess divine inspiration and try to involve themselves in politics. Jeanne is the most famous because the king took her into service and some of her bolder ideas actually worked, but even she had something like three or four rivals in her lifetime all vying for recognition from the king. They were all militantly anti-English, and Jeanne even accused some of fraud.

In terms of game mechanics I think there should be multiple events, maybe even with randomly generated characters, where some religious visionary shows up and offers their service to the king. There are plenty of historical examples. Jeanne can be one, but she shouldn't be the only one. Maybe they should be more likely to trigger when a society is more fervently religious, and it is losing a long war badly. And I don't see why events like this should be limited to France or the HYW.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1Haha
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Ok, I'm just going to correct myself... We actually use 'd' ' as the dynamic case, and that 'de Artois' is a static localization that we just use in that event, so I'm just going to correct that.

Thanks for pointing it out, and sorry for the mistake, sometimes it happens, while trying to reply as many posts as possible.
Thanks for the clarification, I'm sure this kind of thing is very hard to get right, probably even especially in other Latin languages.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Of course.
*evil laugths in Ghibbelin Naples can come to france to help english,plunder and raze down the entire france*

By decree of King Philippe II Altavilla-Hohenstaufen, Naples joins the Hundred Years’ War not for a throne, but for vengeance, gold and the ashes of the false crown. Let France burn.And when the last cathedral burns, we shall carve our crown from their melted gold. Ave Altavilla
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
The stats for Jeanne seem insane.

In the accounts from around that time she comes off as an inspiring figure, but far from a military genius. The accounts often have her proposing rash, militarily unsound actions that the commanders had to talk her down from from lest they incur huge losses. Even if you argue those accounts were from untrustworthy, hostile sources, Jeanne doesn't really seem to have basis as being a tactical genius - maybe an average military commander at best. I don't know what the rationale is for her amazing administrative ability, either. Diplomacy is harder to gauge, so perhaps that stat being incredible makes sense given her role as being an inspiring folk figure.
The Jeanne in this game is actually based on the PSP video game "Jeanne d'Arc", released in 2006, which explains all the inconsistencies.
The game took some liberties with details about Jeanne's life and appearance (Joan of Arc looks way better with dark hair rather than blonde), but to make up for it they got praise for the historical accuracy shown with the depiction of the English enemies, as seen in these screenshots.

hq720.jpg
f0e906fd20786badff8e1a2832a8d4f04274e60b7e411398.jpg


You can really appreciate that Yorkshire phenotype here.

Also, the game faithfully portrayed the use of undead forces and dragons by the English, most famously used by the Black Prince when he devastated the French forces at Crecy by swooping in with a big-ass dragon, one of the most famous uses of Dragons in military fields in the Middle Ages since the Battle of Tours.

8619710437_923e2a8303.jpg
Historical Accuracy.png


Also, these are La Hire and Henry VI in the game:

hREi8Ai.jpeg
168591-2.png


Uncanny resemblances.
Truly, a masterpiece of fidelity.

Jeanne_d%27Arc_Coverart.png

Are there events around her capture and execution? And if so, is there a way to beatify her?
Well, I'm sure that we could just wait for the release and then there will be a ton of mods to beautify her and give her a nice-
Oh! Beatification, the whole Church thing. Pardon.
 
  • 15Haha
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
It's not like there weren't examples of similar dual-allegiance arrangements well into the game's timespan
Yep, for example Wallachia and Ragusa at times held dual allegiances to Hungary and the Ottomans, while Moldavia even had triple allegiances to Hungary, Poland and the Ottomans at some point.
Hungary itself also has a good example. After the Treaty of Speyer, Transylvania was both a vassal of the Ottoman Porte and de jure part of Hungary. The Prince needed to be aknowledged by both the (Habsburg) King of Hungary and the Ottoman Sultan.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
@Pavía how do you decide when you use Modern French and when Middle French for names?

For King John of Bohemia, you explained that you went with "Jehan" because that's the Middle French spelling; but with Joan of Arc, you used "Jeanne", even though the Middle French spelling is "Jehanne".
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: