Hello all.

Sadly we can't yet talk about the big feature of Common Sense, Subject Interaction.. As we are completely redoing the interface for it, so it has to wait until next week.

Instead, we'll talk about a major change to the Holy Roman Empire, and give you the new achievements for 1.12.

Imperial Authority and Reforms

Imperial Authority has had a significant rework in 1.12. The old system tended to advance or retreat authority in big lurches and was very open to exploits. It also did not take into account how well the Empire was doing overall, and there was little benefit for the Emperor to maintain a large number of member states.

This has been changed in 1.12, as many of the events that gave Imperial Authority have been replaced with ticking values. The monthly change to Imperial Authority is now displayed in the interface, and will depend on factors such as:
- Whether there is peace in the Empire
- Total number of member states
- The amount of HRE territory held by outside powers
- The amount of HRE territory held by heretics & heathens
- The number of electors and free cities

An Emperor who is doing a good job will see their Imperial Authority naturally grow without having to resort to methods such as annexing states when authority is at 0 only to release them again later, while an Emperor that allows outside powers and heretics to dominate the Empire will find themselves unable to pass reforms entirely.

As part of this change, we've also revised the old 'Imperial Integrity' modifier for having more than 25 princes. We felt this modifier was both too strong and too arbitrary, so it has been removed. Instead, the HRE reforms were buffed to provide more of an incentive for members to vote for reform.

Achievements

Baltic Crusader - As Teutonic Order or Livonian Order conquer all of the Russia Region and make it Catholic.
Neither Holy, Nor German - Get 7 free cities in the HRE that are not of German Culture, as Emperor
Colonial Management - Have 3 colonial governors directly appointed by you at the same time.
Voting Streak - Get through 11 Issues in a row in Parliament
An Industrial Revolution - As GBR, all in english region, with 25 development.

City of Cities - Create a City with 60 development.
One Family to Rule them All - Have your dynasty on 8 thrones at the same time.
This is My Faith - Become Protestant and get maximum amount of traits.
Bleed them dry - Have 10 different War Reparations being paid to you at the same time.
Subsidize my Love - Subsidize 3 different allies at least 50% of their monthly income without running a deficit.

Take that Habsburgs! - As Hungary, Conquer all of Austria.
The White Elephant - As Ayutthaya conquers all provinces in Indochina region
The Buddhists strike back - As Ceylon conquer all of India and convert it to Theravada.
Better than Napoleon - As France, conquer Vienna, Berlin & Moscow.
Big Blue Blob - As France, hold 100 european core provinces before 1500.

A Full House - Have 3 Vassals & 2 Marches at the Same time.
Black Jack - Maintain 21 different overseas Subjects with more than 5 provinces each, without anyone having more than 50% Liberty Desire - Trade Companies does not count.
A Decent Reserve - Gain at least 1M Manpower.
The Six Nations - Form a federation of at least 6 nations as the Iroqious.
The Bohemians - Conquer and core Dublin as Bohemia.

Komenoi Empire - Make Trebizond into an Empire.
Lucky Lucca - As Lucca, own Lucknow!
A Fine Goosestep - Form Prussia and get 125% Discipline.
Meissner Porcelain - As Saxony own all chinaware provinces.
All Your Trade are Belong to Us! - Have highest tradepower in Genoa, Venice, & English Channel, while gaining 300 income per month.

 

[IsadorBG]

Eh, France came to the rescue of sweden? Yeha right. They had a mutual foe, and none of them were the slighliest bit intrested in the well being of the other. Also sweden got it's german parts in the 30 years war so it wouldn't have been kicked out of germnay because it didn't have any land in germany prior to that. And Sweden during the 30 years war did the impossible they fought the emperor and won, sure with some help from germany but there is a reason that it's Gustavus Adolphus and not Louis XIII that's considered one of the greatest military minds of history.

Yeah but you said that Sweden was backing up France against the Hasburg. Which is not true.

And you didn't say A major military power, that would ahve been true. You said THE major military power, and there simply wasn't such a thing.

Oh yeah ? Can you give me a quote of me saying that ? I was sure that I said that France was weaker than the Hasburg somehow and that only during the reign of Louis XIV and the Revolution was France above the rest but I'll wait for you showing me wrong.

Still not as ridiculous as this:

France isnt that kind of powerhouse, it's a colonial nation, it's a cultural hub, but in regards to land on the european continent the only thing the kingdom of france manages to conquer is brittany. France is powerful yes but it spends that power trying to keep real powerhouses such as the holy roman empire (up until the peace of westphalia) and later the brittish in check. And it ends up bancrupting itself doing that.
Eventually france is late into the industrial revolution and loses it's global holdings. France is one of the big losers of this period. They are on the crusp of being the first kingdom to abolish the feudal state at the begining of the game (that big centralisation that the HRE never manages to pull of). And at the end, while they have not yet fallen the stage is already set for a former imperial OPM to proclaim itself the german empire in Versailles.

Are you kidding me Napoleon is spoken of with scary amounts of respects considering he was basically hitler 0.1, there is no dictator in history that has been more romantisised than napoleon..

Fascinating. Can you give me some of Napeoleon's atrocities for exemple ?

It's true that I don't know much about this side of him.

 

[loup99]

Concerning some other comments here: Burgundy never dominated Europe and France is by far the winner of the EU4 era, together with perhaps Prussia (Brandenburg), Austria (or (England) Great Britain although it is in 1821 not that powerful as it will become). Also, @TheDungen could you please stop jumping between periods of time for explaining something? Thirty Years War, Napoleon, Revolution... You seem to be confusing all of them.

Eh, France came to the rescue of sweden? Yeha right. They had a mutual foe, and none of them were the slighliest bit intrested in the well being of the other. Also sweden got it's german parts in the 30 years war so it wouldn't have been kicked out of germnay because it didn't have any land in germany prior to that. And Sweden during the 30 years war did the impossible they fought the emperor and won, sure with some help from germany but there is a reason that it's Gustavus Adolphus and not Louis XIII that's considered one of the greatest military minds of history.

You are completely confused. France backed up and aided Sweden in the war, and subsidized them. Without the French aid, Sweden would not have been able to do anything. It was a mutual alliance. The German princes did a lot less than France. Louis XIII also opened a second front with Spain.

Are you kidding me Napoleon is spoken of with scary amounts of respects considering he was basically hitler 0.1, there is no dictator in history that has been more romantisised than napoleon.

Napoleon is far from being Hitler, he was a tyrant and an war-faring imperialist, but he never ordered any massacres more than anyone else at the time. He neither elected himself with the French people. George III was not an angel in comparison to him.

 

[commanderx]

Fascinating. Can you give me some of Napeoleon's atrocities for exemple ?

Well he started a war that resulted in countless life's lost and some dissident executions, other than that , nothing much else could be labeled atrocious.

 

[blackchoas]

Are you kidding me Napoleon is spoken of with scary amounts of respects considering he was basically hitler 0.1, there is no dictator in history that has been more romantisised than napoleon.
The only diffrence is that Napoleon was actually somewhat intelligent which cannot be said for Hitler. He knew when to listen to the true man behind the french sucess during the napoleonic war, Jean Baptist Bernadotte. But like hitler he eventually managed to alienate his greatest asset who turned on him. The diffrence is ofcourse that Bernadotte did a lot better when he turned on napoleon than Rommel did when he turned on Hitler.

are you literally crazy? First of all, Alexander the Great is way more romanticized than Napoleon, second of all Caesar is way more romanticized than Napoleon,

how does he even compare to Hitler? I literally don't get how anyone can make this comparison seriously, Napoleon had no desire for world conquest, he didn't even really try, after all he sold the USA more land then he ever conquered. Many of his wars aren't even started by him but either relate back to the wars started because of the revolution or from people breaking treaties they had previously signed. He did try to remake the world order, and unquestionably succeeded, ending the at that point archaic HRE and replaced old feudal laws with modern civil codes. He was a brilliant general, he had brilliant subordinates as well but to suggest he wasn't a good general himself is simply wrong.

Frankly tyrant narrative just doesn't ring true and there is a perfect historical reason why, when tyrants fail or go to far they get rebelled against and often killed, this happened to Alexander when his army refused to push farther into India, this happened to Caesar on the Senate floor and it happened to Mussolini, but when Napoleon returns to France after his exile both times, first as a beggar and then as a corpse they never saw him as a tyrant they always saw him as an emperor because he wasn't a tyrant he was a model monarch, likely one of the best monarchs ever

Napoleon isn't romanticized at all, its the opposite when you consider he is often grouped together with the real tyrants like Alexander, Caesar and Hitler. Which is kinda like grouping Lincoln with these guys, you can make some points but really your just warping the truth in order to make him look bad.

 

[IsadorBG]

Well he started a war that resulted in countless life's lost and some dissident executions, other than that , nothing much else could be labeled atrocious.

What war ? The United Kingdom started 9/10 of them.

As I said winners have the privilege to rewrite history.

And even then it put him in the same level as Alexander the Great or Frederick the Great among others.

Frankly tyrant narrative just doesn't ring true and there is a perfect historical reason why, when tyrants fail or go to far they get rebelled against and often killed, this happened to Alexander when his army refused to push farther into India, this happened to Caesar on the Senate floor and it happened to Mussolini, but when Napoleon returns to France after his exile both times, first as a beggar and then as a corpse they never saw him as a tyrant they always saw him as an emperor because he wasn't a tyrant he was a model monarch, likely one of the best monarchs ever

The funny thing about the tyrant bit is that while it's true that he was a Tyrant.

He still was the most progressist ruler in the world in that period. I mean you won't make me believe his opponent were Liberals.

 

[blackchoas]

The funny thing about the tyrant bit is that while it's true that he was a Tyrant.

He still was the most progressist ruler in the world in that period. I mean you won't make me believe his opponent were Liberals.

Well how are we defining tyrant because depending on the way you define that word literally every monarch ever could be considered a tyrant

I was using tyrant in the sense from Plato's republic in which a tyrant is a single man who rules over all but does it poorly or selfishly as opposed to a monarch or king who rules with the best interests of his people in mind,

 

[loup99]

I was using tyrant in the sense from Plato's republic in which a tyrant is a single man who rules over all but does it poorly or selfishly as opposed to a monarch or king who rules with the best interests of his people in mind,

That description fits in for all monarchs of the Napoleonic wars. They ruled for the best of themselves or a special group.

 

[TheDungen]

Yeah but you said that Sweden was backing up France against the Hasburg. Which is not true.



Oh yeah ? Can you give me a quote of me saying that ? I was sure that I said that France was weaker than the Hasburg somehow and that only during the reign of Louis XIV and the Revolution was France above the rest but I'll wait for you showing me wrong.

Still not as ridiculous as this:





Fascinating. Can you give me some of Napeoleon's atrocities for exemple ?

It's true that I don't know much about this side of him.

He tried to conquer europe! He started a war that killed millions! And for what? Because he liked power and wanted to be Charlamagne. Granted as far as I know he didn't have anything comparable to the holocaust. But on the war issue the similarities are striking.

And being allies during the 30 years war is backing france up against the hapsburgs. Not to mention they were allied for two centuries after that.

I said right from the begining that france did well early in the era, rising to meet the power of the holy roman empire, boosted by their sucess at cetralising (this not population is the source of france's power during this era, the HRE had waay more people but weren't centralised). Following the pece of westphalia they may even be considered the strongest party in europe, especially considering that they are allied to sweden which following that peace becomes a major player in europe themselves (that alliance is maintained from the thrity years war until the revolution when sweden backs the royalists in exile). But France starts to decline after the defeat of the HRE, while they are centralised, they fail to adapt to the changing world. They remain an agraian society while the rest of europe starts moving towards more urbanised societies, culminating in the french's late adoption of the industrial revolution. They as I said and you've failed to respond to, lose all their colonies first in america then in africa. Eventually though outside of this game period these things lead to the enemy they fought so hard to prevent from centralising (germany/the hre) proclaiming their centralised empire at the court of the french kings.
And notice even when france is perhaps the most powerful nation in western europe for about a century, they blob very little on the european continent, instead focusing on fighting england over the colonies (and losing). Which was probably a good idea, becuase if they had pushed the remains of the HRE harder they might have caused them to band toghether again.
You also fail to adress the fact that france at the time of the revolution was bancrupt, ironically they bancrupted themselves fighting in the american war of indapendence (funny fact more french soldiers died for their indapendence than american).

In conclusion, while france may dominate in the things that used to be important during the middle ages and renaissance these thing grow less and less important as the game progresses. Like the HRE before them the french fail to change with the times and thus lose their position of power. Then the revolution happens and napoleon comes into power, all the debts are lost and france looks like a powerhouse, he tries to use it, failing to comprehend the reasons france ended up bancrupt in the first place, and thus squandering any chance france had of catching up the the brittish and prussians. After the defeat of napoleon france's place at the big boy table is over.

 

[CharlesTheBald]

Eh, France came to the rescue of sweden? Yeha right. They had a mutual foe, and none of them were the slighliest bit intrested in the well being of the other. Also sweden got it's german parts in the 30 years war so it wouldn't have been kicked out of germnay because it didn't have any land in germany prior to that. And Sweden during the 30 years war did the impossible they fought the emperor and won, sure with some help from germany but there is a reason that it's Gustavus Adolphus and not Louis XIII that's considered one of the greatest military minds of history.

And you didn't say A major military power, that would ahve been true. You said THE major military power, and there simply wasn't such a thing.

Well, I imagine by "kicked out of Germany" he meant the loss of all lands controlled in Germany during the Thirty Years War, which was a quite impressive collection of towns all the way down into Bavaria before the Battle of Nördlingen.

The Swedish war was in fact funded by France prior to the latters active involvement and after Nördlingen (1634) and the Peace of Prague (1635, when the HRE civil war ended and the Empire united against foreign powers, like Sweden), it was deemed unlikely that Sweden could succesfully pursue the war alone. And so France entered the war in 1635.

After the Peace of Prague, Sweden was pushed back all the way to the parts of Northern Germany where they had once started. So it is fair to say that the French intervention rescued Sweden from being kicked out of Germany.

 

[blackchoas]

That description fits in for all monarchs of the Napoleonic wars. They ruled for the best of themselves or a special group.

Its like there was a reason there was a Revolution or something

Although I don't actually know how true that is, English Monarchy was classically pretty decent if only because it had to put up with Parliament

 

[loup99]

He tried to conquer europe! He started a war that killed millions! And for what? Because he liked power and wanted to be Charlamagne. Granted as far as I know he didn't have anything comparable to the holocaust. But on the war issue the similarities are striking.

What? Wait a minute, who started the war? Great Britain started almost all of the coalition wars.

And being allies during the 30 years war is backing france up against the hapsburgs. Not to mention they were allied for two centuries after that.

The exact contrary is what happened. France funded Sweden in the war. They then rescued them by intervening (after the death of Gustav Adolf) and starting a second front as well as being at war with Spain. If anything Sweden did what France wanted.

Although I don't actually know how true that is, English Monarchy was classically pretty decent if only because it had to put up with Parliament

True, but the Parliament was not elected by the whole population. So it only represented a little group of it at the time. Not before the 20th century the elections would have, for instance, the women voting!

 

[IsadorBG]

He tried to conquer europe!

No he did not.

He started a war that killed millions!

What war exactly?

And for what? Because he liked power and wanted to be Charlamagne. Granted as far as I know he didn't have anything comparable to the holocaust. But on the war issue the similarities are striking.

What similarities ?

And being allies during the 30 years war is backing france up against the hapsburgs. Not to mention they were allied for two centuries after that.

And here I was sure that it was Sweden that was at war with the Habsburgs and then France come backing up Sweden and not the reverse.

They remain an agraian society while the rest of europe starts moving towards more urbanised societies, culminating in the french's late adoption of the industrial revolution. They as I said and you've failed to respond to, lose all their colonies first in america then in africa. Eventually though outside of this game period these things lead to the enemy they fought so hard to prevent from centralising (germany/the hre) proclaiming their centralised empire at the court of the french kings.

They only lost their colonies in america againt the UK. The rest is out of the timeframe and thus completly irrelevent.
The UK has the naval ideas required to beat France at the colonial game so no issue in that respect from me.

And notice even when france is perhaps the most powerful nation in western europe for about a century, they blob very little on the european continent, instead focusing on fighting england over the colonies (and losing).

I have already explained why.

You also fail to adress the fact that france at the time of the revolution was bancrupt, ironically they bancrupted themselves fighting in the american war of indapendence (funny fact more french soldiers died for their indapendence than american).

France wasn't bankrupt it was near it but the Revolution solved the problem.

In conclusion, while france may dominate in the things that used to be important during the middle ages and renaissance these thing grow less and less important as the game progresses. Like the HRE before them the french fail to change with the times and thus lose their position of power. Then the revolution happens and napoleon comes into power, all the debts are lost and france looks like a powerhouse, he tries to use it, failing to comprehend the reasons france ended up bancrupt in the first place, and thus squandering any chance france had of catching up the the brittish and prussians. After the defeat of napoleon france's place at the big boy table is over.

Err Actually in IRL France was getting stronger and stronger and it culminated in the revolutionnaries war.

You should check Louis XIV's page in wikipedia it will teach you more (a lot) about France in the modern era.

 

[blackchoas]

True, but the Parliament was not elected by the whole population. So it only represented a little group of it at the time. Not before the 20th century the elections would have, for instance, the women voting!

Likely a good thing, doing what the people want and doing what is best for the people is often not the same, I should know I live in America where we complain about government debt, refuse to raise taxes on any person or corporation but still feel we should not just out spend but completely eclipse everyone else with military spending

 

[Zerodv]

Napoleon can be considered good only by French people, not by the Haitian, Spanish, Germans, Italians and Egyptian. Seriously, he was simply a General and the Political Head of a (nor particularly) warmonger country. He was ambitious like many other great person, he really didn´t care of the people in the area he conquered and he his army did some atrocities during his campaign.
The birth of nationalism was of course not something Napoleon directly wanted to created, after all he brought the Germans and the Italians to fought his imperialistic war.
So at the end he is simply a man that fights for his ambitions and his country, not a liberator nor a monster.

 

[loup99]

Napoleon can be considered good only by French people, not by the Haitian, Spanish, Germans, Italians and Egyptian. Seriously, he was simply a General and the Political Head of a (nor particularly) warmonger country. He was ambitious like many other great person, he really didn´t care of the people in the area he conquered and his army did some atrocities during his campaign. The birth of nationalism was of course not something Napoleon directly wanted to created, after all he brought the Germans and the Italians to fought his imperialistic war.

So at the end he is simply a man that fights for his ambitions and his country, not a liberator nor a monster.

This is a relatively good description of it, you describe it in a lot more structured and clear manner than the @TheDungen who confuses up different events and compares to other dicators of other eras. But do not forget that the coalitions where not wars he declared, that was mostly Great Britain.

 

[blackchoas]

Napoleon can be considered good only by French people, not by the Haitian, Spanish, Germans, Italians and Egyptian. Seriously, he was simply a General and the Political Head of a (nor particularly) warmonger country. He was ambitious like many other great person, he really didn´t care of the people in the area he conquered and he his army did some atrocities during his campaign.
The birth of nationalism was of course not something Napoleon directly wanted to created, after all he brought the Germans and the Italians to fought his imperialistic war.
So at the end he is simply a man that fights for his ambitions and his country, not a liberator nor a monster.

This is rather fair but Napoleon was a product of the French Revolution he believed in the values of the revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizens, if he did not he would not have forced it more or less on the entirety of Europe, he might not have done it purely for this but he didn't have to do this at all but he did anyway

 

[Admiral Fisker]

Napoleon can be considered good only by French people, not by the Haitian, Spanish, Germans, Italians and Egyptian. Seriously, he was simply a General and the Political Head of a (nor particularly) warmonger country. He was ambitious like many other great person, he really didn´t care of the people in the area he conquered and he his army did some atrocities during his campaign.
The birth of nationalism was of course not something Napoleon directly wanted to created, after all he brought the Germans and the Italians to fought his imperialistic war.
So at the end he is simply a man that fights for his ambitions and his country, not a liberator nor a monster.

I'm a Dane and I greatly admire Napoleon.

Also, he didn't care about the people in the areas he conquered? Tell that to the Poles or the Jews.

 

[Zerodv]

I'm a Dane and I greatly admire Napoleon.

Also, he didn't care about the people in the areas he conquered? Tell that to the Poles or the Jews.

Denmark was an ally of Napoleon >_> Anyway admiration doesn´t mean thinking that he was always right in doing what he did, I also admire Napoleon for his career and his success but he was fighting only for the French Empire and himself, not for liberty or other countries.
What did Napoleon for the Jews? I never heard anything about that(I´m not saying that what you said is false). Well Napoleon didn´t restore completely the border of the old Poland and his action were motivated by strategic plans, not to help the Poles.

This is rather fair but Napoleon was a product of the French Revolution he believed in the values of the revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizens, if he did not he would not have forced it more or less on the entirety of Europe, he might not have done it purely for this but he didn't have to do this at all but he did anyway

Well, some of the rights present during the Republic weren´t there when Napoleon came, freedom of thought and of press weren´t present for example. He reintroduced slavery too. I guess he simply let the people have the rights that would not make them able to have political power and damage his regime.

 

[Admiral Fisker]

Denmark was an ally of Napoleon >_> Anyway admiration doesn´t mean thinking that he was always right in doing what he did, I also admire Napoleon for his career and his success but was fighting for the French Empire, not for liberty.
What did Napoleon for the Jews? I never heard anything about that(I´m not saying that what you said is false). Well Napoleon didn´t restore completely the border of the old Poland and his action were motivated by strategic plans, not to help the Poles.

"The net effect of his policies, as a result, significantly changed the position of the Jews in Europe, and he was widely admired by the Jews as a result. Starting in 1806, Napoleon passed a number of measures supporting the position of the Jews in the French Empire, including assembling a representative group elected by the Jewish community, the Sanhedrin. In conquered countries, he abolished laws restricting Jews to ghettos. In 1807, he made Judaism, along with Roman Catholicism and Lutheran and Calvinist Protestantism, official religions of France. Napoleon rolled back a number of reforms in 1808 (so-called décret infâme of March 17, 1808), declaring all debts with Jews annulled, reduced or postponed, which caused the Jewish community to nearly collapse. Jews were also restricted in where they could live, in hopes of assimilating them into society. These restrictions were eliminated again by 1811."
From Wiki.

 

[Zerodv]

Well this is actually saying that Jews were simply treated as potential enemy and/or political tool, anyway Napoleon and his reform aimed to remove Catholic Church influence from the country. He even used the fact that he conquered the Papal State to convince the Egyptians to back him.(actually I don´t remember where I read this but I guess someone could find the source if it exist)