AGC-EEP: English Civil War (ECW)

[unmerged(17856)]

So this thread is to help ECW discussions...countinuing from the NA thread...

Anyways, here's the gist of what you'll see bellow: basically, with correct ECW triggers, ENG shooses which faction to fight for. The revolter tag, PUR is granted its sole province, which is located in ENG's capital province, Anglia. The initial event proceeds to divide England appropriately between the 2 forces. The ideaology, is that whichever side ENG chooses, Parliamentary or Royalist, they effectively represent England, while their respective opposition, represents the revolting faction or rebel faction. So it's from an extreme view centered on the ENG player or AI and runs along the lines of "WE represent England, while YOU are triators, and rebel scum!" At any rate, the series begins with this initial fractionalizing event and then progresses to set the stage accordingly...oh, first is the new revolt.txt definition for PUR tag.

PUR = {
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1640 }
expirydate = { day = 31 month = december year = 1645 }
minimum = { 247 }
maximum = { }
group = latin
}

#English Civil War initalizing event

event = {
id = 2000000
random = no
country = ENG

date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1419 }
offset = 30
deathdate = { day = 31 month = december year = 1420 }

trigger = {
owned = { province = 247 data = -1 } #London
owned = { province = 244 data = -1 } #Midlands
}

name = "English Civil War"
desc = "Civil War has fractured our glorious nation! Whom will you command?!"

action_a = {
name = "Assume command of the Parlimanetary forces!"
command = { type = independence which = PUR }
command = { type = trigger which = 2000001 }
}
action_b = {
name = "Assume command of the Royalist forces!"
command = { type = independence which = PUR }
command = { type = trigger which = 2000004 }
}
}

# Having Picked Parliamentary forces, Royalist territory is marked...

event = {
id = 2000001
random = no
country = ENG

name = "English Civil War"
desc = "Nobility and peasants alike are aligning themselves with the enemy!"

action_a = {
name = "Curses!"
command = { type = breakvassal which = PUR }
command = { type = relation which = PUR value = -200 }
command = { type = INF which = -1 value = -10000 }
command = { type = INF which = -1 value = -10000 }
command = { type = INF which = -1 value = -5000 }
command = { type = CAV which = -1 value = -2500 }
command = { type = CAV which = -1 value = -2500 }
command = { type = CAV which = -1 value = -1000 }
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PUR value = 243 } #Wales
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PUR value = 245 } #Lincoln
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PUR value = 240 } #Northumberland
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PUR value = 244 } #Midlands
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PUR value = 242 } #Lancashire
command = { type = trigger which = 2000002 }
}
}

#King Charles Flees London, Royalists give you Anglia, declare war on you, raise army

event = {
id = 2000002
random = no
country = PUR

name = "Charles Flees London"
desc = "King Charles has fled London and raised his standard in Nottinghmam."

action_a = {
name = "Understood"
command = { type = secedeprovince which = ENG value = 247 } #Anglia
command = { type = capital which = 244 } #Midlands
command = { type = stability value = 6 }
command = { type = war which = ENG }
command = { type = INF which = 244 value = 10000 }
command = { type = INF which = 244 value = 5000 }
command = { type = CAV which = 244 value = 3000 }
command = { type = ART which = 244 value = 20 }
command = { type = trigger which = 2000003 }
}
}

# King Charles flees London and you receive your capital

event = {
id = 2000003
random = no
country = ENG

name = "Charles Flees London"
desc = "King Charles has fled London and raised his standard in Nottingham, we have full control of the capital, sir."

action_a = {
name = "Ok"
command = { type = capital which = 247 } #Anglia
command = { type = stability value = 3 }
}
}

# Having picked Royalists, Parliamentary territory is marked...

event = {
id = 2000004
random = no
country = ENG

name = "English Civil War"
desc = "Nobility and peasants alike are aligning themselves with the enemy!"

action_a = {
name = "Curses!"
command = { type = breakvassal which = PUR }
command = { type = relation which = PUR value = -200 }
command = { type = INF which = -1 value = -10000 }
command = { type = INF which = -1 value = -10000 }
command = { type = INF which = -1 value = -5000 }
command = { type = CAV which = -1 value = -2500 }
command = { type = CAV which = -1 value = -2500 }
command = { type = CAV which = -1 value = -1000 }
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PUR value = 248 } #Kent
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PUR value = 249 } #Wessex
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PUR value = 250 } #Cornwall
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PUR value = 241 } #Yorkshire
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PUR value = 250 } #Bristol
command = { type = trigger which = 2000005 }
}
}

# King Charles flees London, you give Anglia to Parliament and declare war on them

event = {
id = 2000005
random = no
country = ENG

name = "King Charles flees London"
desc = "King Charles fled London and raised his standard in Nottingham."

action_a = {
name = "Ok"
command = { type = secedeprovince which = PUR value = 247 } #Anglia
command = { type = capital which = 244 } #Midlands
command = { type = war which = PUR }
command = { type = INF which = -1 value = 10000 }
command = { type = INF which = -1 value = 5000 }
command = { type = CAV which = -1 value = 3000 }
command = { type = ART which = -1 value = 20 }
command = { type = trigger which = 2000006 }
}
}

# ...and finally, PUR AI as the Parliamentary forces, has received Anglia back and re-istablishes their capital in London...

event = {
id = 2000006
random = no
country = PUR

name = "King Charles flees London"
desc = "King Charles has fled London and raised his standard in Nottingham, we have full control of the capital."

action_a = {
name = "Ok"
command = { type = capital which = 247 }
command = { type = stability value = 6 }
command = { type = INF which = 247 value = 15000 }
command = { type = INF which = 247 value = 5000 }
command = { type = CAV which = 247 value = 3000 }
command = { type = ART which = 247 value = 20 }
}
}

So basically the stage is set for the war. This is the basic form. We can juice them up with special triggers, and perhaps grant SCO independence, if they don't exist...then have them choose which side they wanna be on given appropriate conditoins (slanted towards Parliament, initially with the "Solemn League & Covenant" etc...)
thoughts?

EDIT: so mass confusion using the old symbloic 'REB' tag...so it's been changed to a more literal version, ok guys?...i.e. where it once said 'REB' it now says 'PUR'.

Is the REB tag allowed to own provinces or revolt free for that matter?

Ok, not sure if you're being sarcastic here, but I know we can't use a REB tag, because 'REB' as a tag, doesn't exist. So I suppose we would use PUR, for example, as the tag, and thus would free ROY as a tag.
I just used 'REB' as a symbol. And the idea, is that the player, fights a live and active AI for his/hers or 'its' (in the case of AI) desired future for England. A more exciting ECW than present, though not as realistic as using two tags, though reconsiliatory in light of improving a distant region for a longer duration ogf gameplay (say giving the ROY tag to SA or MA or where ever)

But you can see that in the REB (PUR) tag revolt.txt definition, it can only revolt free once the traditional ECW time-frame begins. But the PUR tag revolting away without the event, before the event triggers, shouldn't affect the outcome of the event, as the command screen would simply omit the 'grant independence' portion from the window which outlines the consequences of each action you'd take.
Once this series is triggered, we could take forces away from the ENG tag, as the war was quite unpopular and intially, the forces for each faction were small. For the PUR tag, we can give them armies and cash bonuses in the following manner: For the Royalists, with no means of procurring taxes, we could hinder tax income from their provinces, and give them periodic cash bonuses and troop bonuses from supporting nobility and peasants. For the Parliamentary faction, we can give them armies and perhaps boost taxes for their provices, yet give them no cash bonuses.

EDIT: the events actually work now test 'em out

 

[Twoflower]

So, how is your fantastic universal rebel faction tag going to handle the English Civil War and the Chinese civil war at the same time? I don't assume that if you want to axe the Royalists and Puritans you are going to keep the four Chinese factions, right? Or what to do if there are three factions in one conflict, like in the French Wars of Religion, who are supposed to fight each other? Quite plainly, the idea of a universal revolter, while sounding nice, just does not work out, or at least it is by far not worth the effort and disadvantages.

 

[unmerged(17856)]

So, how is your fantastic universal rebel faction tag going to handle the English Civil War and the Chinese civil war at the same time? I don't assume that if you want to axe the Royalists and Puritans you are going to keep the four Chinese factions, right? Or what to do if there are three factions in one conflict, like in the French Wars of Religion, who are supposed to fight each other? Quite plainly, the idea of a universal revolter, while sounding nice, just does not work out, or at least it is by far not worth the effort and disadvantages.

Ok I think you're taking this a little too far here...the ECW proposal does not need to handle the Chinese Civil War. It just takes advantage of the fact that, currently, we have 2 extra revolter tags for purposes of the ECW. With my proposal, we commit one of the tags, either ROY, or PUR (PUR in my poposal) to cover both, as whichever side the player chooses, just carries on as ENG, the PUR tag assumes the ENG player's 'enemy faction'.

As for the limited UNIVERSAL 'rebel tag' idea (see Limited Universal Civil War tag thread) it remains inconclusive, as of yet, but if we were to implement this ECW proposal, we may be able to use the PUR tag for the Incas civil war too , thus lending credence to furthering the universal tag idea...but...

That will depend on if all of the provinces listed in the minimum definition file of a revolter tag, need to be in the sole possession of the country which will be setting them free. For example, for my proposal to work for the ECW, ENG needs to own province # 247 (Anglia).

Now, if we expand that minimum provinces definition in the PUR portion in revolt.txt to include the appropriate SA province, will ENG be able to set PUR free if she doesn't own that SA province but owns Anglia?

 

[unmerged(17856)]

Answering my own question here, after testing, and the results are that we can use the PUR tag for the Incan civil war, for example.

Whichever nation is setting the revolt.txt tag free, does not need to own all the provinces defined in the minimum definition in order to set it free. This means we can use the same tag to as a rebel civil war faction as long as the wars the rebel tag are going to participate in are distanced from each other temporally and geographically.

The next hurdle, depends on whether or not the line in revolt.txt : "PUR = no"
makes the tag only appear if it is triggered via event.

 

[Garbon]

The next hurdle, depends on whether or not the line in revolt.txt : "PUR = no"
makes the tag only appear if it is triggered via event.

You need the line "revolt=no" and not "PUR=no". The first only allows a nation to come into existence by being released as a vassal (via event or player). The latter states that the given state can only revolt if PUR does not exist.

 

[unmerged(17856)]

You need the line "revolt=no" and not "PUR=no". The first only allows a nation to come into existence by being released as a vassal (via event or player). The latter states that the given state can only revolt if PUR does not exist.

cool, thanks Garbon. That is great news. This means alot for the project, and I honestly think some HCs should take a look at it then.

The next hurdle, is whether or not there is a way to have a revolter tag represent a different "group". I am going to experiment with this a little.

Other than this "Group" hurdle, we really do have a method for giving out extra tags for civil war purposes for countries within the same group. Right, now, for the PUR tag, it would be latin group.

 

[unmerged(17856)]

The next hurdle, is whether or not there is a way to have a revolter tag represent a different "group". I am going to experiment with this a little.

Ok, so the game can't recognize "OR" statements in revolt.txt ...it was worth a shot though

So we'd have a problem with representing different group types with a single tag. But, keep in mind that the tag assumes the tech level that the country that it was revolted away from, so going from European to SA tech would not be an issue. The problem lies in the way the graphic would look :wacko:

I imagine no one would want to see pikemen marching through SA to fight Incas. On the bright side, at least the graphic wouldn't be a guy holding a musket

 

[Twoflower]

The whole thing can probably work in some way, nevertheless this does not say it is in any way desirable or necessary. No matter what you do, fighting the Puritans, Royalists and Quito will feel and look a lot better than fighting a generic revolter tag - and besides, although most things can work with this after some effort, a lot of stuff will be terribly complicated. I don't see the call for this discussion as long as we don't have to cut down these tags and, more importantly, you have not proven yet why the Puritans and Royalists don't meet the standards of EU2 nations. Btw, if they indeed don't, it is imo not wrong to just represent them as rebels.

 

[unmerged(10128)]

The whole thing can probably work in some way, nevertheless this does not say it is in any way desirable or necessary. No matter what you do, fighting the Puritans, Royalists and Quito will feel and look a lot better than fighting a generic revolter tag - and besides, although most things can work with this after some effort, a lot of stuff will be terribly complicated. I don't see the call for this discussion as long as we don't have to cut down these tags and, more importantly, you have not proven yet why the Puritans and Royalists don't meet the standards of EU2 nations. Btw, if they indeed don't, it is imo not wrong to just represent them as rebels.

i just noticed that these points are very similar to those in the previous universal revolter tag thread. I hope we dont need to re-discuss that again.

 

[unmerged(17856)]

Well the problem as I see it , is that IF we have Royalists and Puritans, then there's really no reason why we shouln't have Lancastrians and Yorkists. And Sun_Zi, the universal tag was never going to be universal, to set the record straight, that old thread title became misleading...that idea is more limited than the thread title aludes to.

Some limitations I've just figured out are that it would be odd in trying to represent different 'groups' like going from latin representation to exotic representation i.e. you can't do it, unfortunately.

Now, the only other problems are looks-wise, because we'd be stuck with one flag and one shield and one name. "the Insurgence" was suggested for a name...

those are the only real distinct complications though. It is important to note, that the problems with this proposal (minus the aesthetic ones) are exactly the same as those faced by HUG, FUC, ROY and PUR - all being revolter tags that spring up for the duration of civil war. So really, it is only a matter of reconsiling ourselves with the aesthetics. Whether or not that is possible I leave it up for the community to decide.

Also, Twoflower, to my knowledge JC's grand plans for the ECW were never implemented into EEP. They should be though, at least for the merger. B/c as it stands right now, the ROY and PUR tags are utter wastes man. Modeling the ECW on the FWoR (and adding a new 'assessment system') will validate the tags' existence.

 

[unmerged(6159)]

i just noticed that these points are very similar to those in the previous universal revolter tag thread. I hope we dont need to re-discuss that again.

As long as there are absolutely no free tags it's sort of inevitable that it's going to come up every time someone says "sorry there are no free tags".

 

[unmerged(10128)]

As long as there are absolutely no free tags it's sort of inevitable that it's going to come up every time someone says "sorry there are no free tags".

yea it also seems inevitable that something is always missed when suggesting these kinds of proposals:

I don't see the call for this discussion as long as we don't have to cut down these tags and, more importantly, you have not proven yet why the Puritans and Royalists don't meet the standards of EU2 nations. Btw, if they indeed don't, it is imo not wrong to just represent them as rebels.

 

[unmerged(15559)]

Interesting ideas so far, I agree somrthing should be done with the conflict between the Lancastrians and Yorkists. After all, if the House of Lancaster applied the same rules to itself as they wished to impose on the French throne, the House of York would have the stronger claim to the English throne. No matter the outcome of the HYW this conflict was unlikely to go away, therefore we will have to allow for the possiblity of England winning the HYW. After all, what a player wants is usually won from the ai given enough persistance.

 

[unmerged(17856)]

Glad you agree on the War of the Roses part. Currently, it's ok and interesting when we read the historical desciptions and we learn a bit, but other than that we don't really do much at all. A tag would be great, or at least re-work the schemes. For example, we should get France, Ireland and Scotland more involved with it like they actually were. If it's cool with you Tarleton, then pm me and I'll pass on what I have so far for the WotR. So far, I have about 15 events that involve a tag but I'd appreciate some pointers and some constructive criticism.

I've identified about 5 major requesits for the WotRs...
1. losing French territory:
-losing "Normandie" mid 1450
-losing "Gascone" mid 1453

2. ailing mental health of King Henry VI:
-within a few weeks of the fall of Castillion, 1453, King Henry VI falls into madness for 1 1/2 years (catatonic state)

3. Henry's confidantes:
-Dukes of Suffolk and Somerset were widely hated amongst the general population as they abused their subjects (directly evidenced in the Proclamation of Grievances, 1450)

4. Henry's domestic rivals:
-Duke of York, Neville Earls of Salisbury and Warwick who were not in the Kings favour and political rivals of those who were (exemplified in the Neville/Percy rivalry and rooted also in the Percy's support of Owain Glyndwr's uprisings in the earlier years of the 1400s. The bulk of the burden for the subsequent campaigns falling on the border shires of the "Midlands".

5.Giving up Maine for a truce & marriage to Margaret of Anjou, 1445. Virtual Government bankruptsy and loss of authority in Wales and Ireland (verging on paralyses in these countries).

I think an importance that is often times lost when we think of the War of the Roses is that the war effecively ushered in England's absolute monarch phase, which largely paved the way for the ECW. There were roughly 60 families of Nobility before the WotR. And roughly 30 when it was finished.

I think it's safe to say that regardless of HYW outcome, that a War of the Roses had a damn good chance of occuring. 4 out of 5 points are domestic and personal in nature to King Henry VI and his decisions. I agree that the Lancastrian claims on the throne of France were entirely hypocritical. IMO, York had a much better claim on the throne than Henry VI anyways. Ideally, England should have a slim to none chance of holding onto France and not plunging into civil war within the first 50 years of gameplay. Ideally, there should be a kind of snowballing-effect, beginning with an empty treasury, inability to raise substantial amounts of troops, Joan of Arc and culminating with anarchy during the war of the roses that just wipes the floor with the ENG player. So a slim chance of avoiding all that and changing the entire course of the game, but 99% of the time it should be: look the f%$# out, 'cause there's a storm on the horizon! type deal.

A few quick suggestions: give the player the choice to take Richard of York's position, striving to retore the pride of the Plantagenets. Choosing his position sadles you with the responsibility of overthrowing a grossly mismanaged government and incompetant usurper, grants you excellent military commanders e.g. Richard Neville (Salisbury) and his son (Warkwick). On the other hand, choosing an early submission for Richard effectively gives you civil unrest for decades as an incompetant Henry struggles to deal with mental illness, incompetant advisors and miserable administration, military leadership etc. Also, each would be-monarch should get to choose whether or not they wish to take the field and fight with their men. Choosing to place, say, King Henry VI on the field would flag events which will subsequently look out for his 'non-exsitence'. So for example, having fielded King Henry VI, and having him die in a battle prematurely, would effectively wipe out the monarch, and trigger Richard of York's ascendation of the throne. Just imagine, Richard of York and King Henry VI facing off in a 'Bosworth Field' type situation!!! On the other hand, Richard's premature death triggers his son, Edwards, arival on the scene to take his place. If Richard lives longer than 1460 (or he can just die historically, we can say of a disease or whatever), then we give the player the option to field Edward as he's 'of age' and eager to prove himself in battle. The idea being that the intense conflict does not end, typically, until both Richard and Edward are slain on the field, OR Henry VI and HIS son are slain on the field (or slain in general you know). In the case of Henry VI's death, however, perhaps Margaret then escapes with Henry's son...so France then chooses whether or not to turn them over to the new English monarchy, and if not, then whether or not they will fund an army for the Queen and her son (and so-called rightful heir). If France pays for 10,000 men (as they did historically) then Henry VI's son (not Tudor Henry mind you) leads an army of Frenchmen and English supporters onto English soil in a desperate attempt to regain the throne for the Lancasters...I dunno, stuff like that.

 

[unmerged(6828)]

I agree with your positions Ribbon22, but as a general commentary on English history i find that the destruction of the noble families in WOTR made the remaining ones agree to surrender power to the monarchy for the good of the kingdom and for their very survival. The ECW, however, was an experiment in changing that principle and it came to utter failure. Essentially, through testing another method in the ECW, the English nobles signed away their remaining rights to parliament. They ended up with centralization by the middle class, not the upper.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

I am afraid that I will have to disagree with Ribbon22 about the effects of the Wars of the Roses on the English nobility. On average during the middle ages noble families would die out in about three generations, this figure does not noticably change during the wars of the roses.

In any case the power of the aristocracy cannot be tied so closely to the size of the nobility. Under the Tudors the number of nobles increases, leveling off at a figure of around sixty by the mid 1550s, yet no one could say that the Elizabethan nobility held as much power as the similarly sized nobility of Henry VI.

In my opinion more important in the decline in power of the English nobility was the comparitive peace of the Tudor period. With no Hundred Years War to fight the Tudors no longer had the need for troops supplied by the nobility so were able to enforce the existing laws against the keeping of liveried retainers; thus negating the military power of the nobility. Also the HYW had been a great financial drain. Due to a combination of reduced expenditure and more efficient gathering of royal revenue both Edward IV and Henry VII kept the monarchy solvent, an unprecedented achievement for medieval England, again balancing power towards the monarch. Another problem for the nobles of this period was that most were living under suspended sentences of attainder, giving the king a legal right to destroy any noble who stepped out of line.

 

[unmerged(15559)]

In my opinion more important in the decline in power of the English nobility was the comparitive peace of the Tudor period. With no Hundred Years War to fight the Tudors no longer had the need for troops supplied by the nobility so were able to enforce the existing laws against the keeping of liveried retainers; thus negating the military power of the nobility. Also the HYW had been a great financial drain. Due to a combination of reduced expenditure and more efficient gathering of royal revenue both Edward IV and Henry VII kept the monarchy solvent, an unprecedented achievement for medieval England, again balancing power towards the monarch. Another problem for the nobles of this period was that most were living under suspended sentences of attainder, giving the king a legal right to destroy any noble who stepped out of line.

I agree with most of what you wrote, except things were a little more complicated on the financial side. The English monarch had much more problems paying his bills than the French. Indeed, in EU terms you could say that Edward III went bankrupt, perhaps more than once. Only Henry V was successful in paying his bills. What the English did use to balance things out was the chevauchee. Below, I've attached a quote that explains it for the most part.

A Shiver in My Spine: Chevauchee
One side effect of having the text of 10,000 books from Project Gutenberg newly-downloaded onto your laptop is that you can read the introduction to Chaucer's Canterbury Tales while proctoring your undergraduate exam. But I just ran across a passage that puts a shiver in my spine, a passage about the KNIGHT'S son, the SQUIRE:

With him there was his son, a younge SQUIRE,
A lover, and a lusty bacheler,
With lockes crulle as they were laid in press.
Of twenty year of age he was I guess.
Of his stature he was of even length,
And wonderly deliver, and great of strength.
And he had been some time in chevachie,
In Flanders, in Artois, and Picardie,
And borne him well, as of so little space,
In hope to standen in his lady's grace.

"...had been some time in chevauchee..." (as it is usually spelled).

Let me tell you how the Hundred Years War (during which Geoffrey Chaucer was an English government functionary) worked. An English army ventures into France. The French have more knights, more horses, and lots of castles. As long as the French harass the English--cutting off detachments, ambushing vanguards, surprising foraging parties--the English will (a) fail to take territory (for besieging castles is difficult and time consuming, and (b) find their army attrited away. Only if the English can induce the French to charge the English longbow archers while they are entrenched behind their wooden stakes can the English win a pitched battle, and in the aftermath of a massive victory like Crecy or Poitiers or Agincourt press forward and pick up the mass surrenders that gain them provinces.

So how can the English kings and princes persuade the French to charge the longbows? The answer the English found was the chevauchee: send your cavalry and your archers (who can march pretty fast) through French provinces, moving as fast as possible, burning and killing everything in their path. Perhaps the destruction will enrage the French enough that they will lose their heads and charge. Perhaps the French will feel that they must fight--whether it is good tactical ground for them or not--out of a sense of duty to their vassals and serfs. Perhaps the English get a pitched battle fought under favorable tactical circumstances. If not, they will come home having suffered few casualties, and laden with at least some booty, having had a merry time burning crops, burning villages, and killing peasants, and extorting valuables from small walled towns that do not want to risk the chance that the English army would halt and attempt a full siege.

That is what's hidden beneath Chaucer's three merry lines:

And he had been some time in chevachie,
In Flanders, in Artois, and Picardie,
And borne him well, as of so little space,

Truly this is the kind of activity after which one can "hope to standen in his lady's grace."

Right now I'm seeing burned French villages and butchered peasants in my mind's eye, and contrasting it with Chaucer's further description of the SQUIRE:

Embroider'd was he, as it were a mead
All full of freshe flowers, white and red.
Singing he was, or fluting all the day;
He was as fresh as is the month of May.
Short was his gown, with sleeves long and wide.
Well could he sit on horse, and faire ride.
He coulde songes make, and well indite,
Joust, and eke dance, and well pourtray and write.
So hot he loved, that by nightertale
He slept no more than doth the nightingale.
Courteous he was, lowly, and serviceable,
And carv'd before his father at the table.

The past is truly another country. (Of course, much of the world in the present is another country--all of the world outside the borders of the U.S.A. is another country, in fact.)

What is left unsaid is that this type of warfare attracted bandit armies who took control of and conducted organized looting of large areas of France. Some of these campaigns were very successful, and more that a few fortunes were made and castles built back in England. In a strange way, one could argue that the HYW actually encouraged the development of a middle class in England. Often England looked at campaigning in France more as a way to make money, than press their rights to the throne. Is it any wonder that some today think of England during the HYW as a nation led by criminals.

 

[Machiavellian]

I just want to make one comment in regards to talk that the Puritan tag is an utter waste. I actually played a very interesting and entertaining game as the Puritans all the way to the 1820 end date. That was in regular EU II, not even EEP or AGC. Even devoid of events I found it fun and well worth the effort. To remove the option of playing a revolter like the Puritans or the Huguenots would be a real shame. This game is not just about 'what did happen' but also I feel about 'what COULD have happened'. One of the most annoying things I have seen in this game thus far is a Huguenot's that more or less crushed france in the war, only to vanish due to the at the walls of paris event.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Three quick questions about the event chain:

• How is it affected by foreign ownership of some (or all except Anglia) of the provinces involved when the events fire?
• Ditto with foreign controllership (including Anglia) [I don't remember the effect of the secede command when the province is controlled by a third party]
• This use of multiple events triggering each other in a chain immediately is ok in SP where the game pauses. Will it cause any MP problems? [answer: likely]

Regarding the two first points, I have this nagging suspicion that it is possible to set up a situation using foreign ownership or controllership (which may happen, more likely in MP than in SP though) where the events would try to force a nation to secede its last province or secede its capital province.

The capital switching trick does seem to rely on the absolute knowledge that the two provinces, Anglia and Midlands, are owned by one of either of the two parties at all times during the steps of execution - but this is not guaranteed in MP.

A cursory examination suggests that you could run into real trouble with something like this MP scenario (a VERY contrived scenario, I'll admit, but it is the one that popped into my head first, and it does not even involve lag, which is another potential problem)

1. England is at war with, say France, and losing badly. It offers Midlands and some other provinces for peace
2. England gets 2000000 event (owns Midlands and Anglia), answers a), and gets event 2000001. Englands capital is now somewhere, and the Puritans' is in Anglia
3. France - having considered England's offer for a few seconds - accepts England's offer. The Midlands &etc are now French.
4. England clicks OK to 2000001, triggering 2000002 for the Puritans
5. Something weird happens, the degree of weirdness depending on whether any provinces at all were seceded to the Puritans in 2000001

 

[unmerged(10128)]

I just want to make one comment in regards to talk that the Puritan tag is an utter waste. I actually played a very interesting and entertaining game as the Puritans all the way to the 1820 end date. That was in regular EU II, not even EEP or AGC. Even devoid of events I found it fun and well worth the effort. To remove the option of playing a revolter like the Puritans or the Huguenots would be a real shame. This game is not just about 'what did happen' but also I feel about 'what COULD have happened'. One of the most annoying things I have seen in this game thus far is a Huguenot's that more or less crushed france in the war, only to vanish due to the at the walls of paris event.

good point. the standard by which we assign tags would include plausible alternative history.