-
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.
i agree with you , it even balances central europe for the full game
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesian_Piasts
Gabron?
Ugh horrible typo. I'm very sorry, many apologies for that.
Allright. I do want to stress that I expect Silesia most likely getting eaten up quick. But this will serve a number of purposes I consider important for early 15th century regional in-game balance and making the game more historical:
1) Even if it will get annexed by the end of the 15th century (which happened to several silesian duchies historically), it will create suspense as to who will annex it (Bohemia should be the most likely candidate, but Poland or Brandenburg should be very real competitors). Each BOH, POL and BRA would start without a core on Silesia and get a claimcore only if at any point of the game they own it. This will introduce more suspense, dynamism and historically appropriate power-struggles in the region.
2) It leaves Silesia open to possible Hussite conquest (a very real threat back in the day). In fact Hussites under Prokop invaded Silesia and Meissen, but not Moravia. Hence the idea of moving the BOH capital to moravia will yield more historicall results.
3) It will require BOH to at least invest money in diploannexing Silesia and it will deny tax from Silesia it now gets, which will bring more balance to the game as IMHO BOH is a bit too strong in the current AGCEEP in the post-hussite era.
Last edited:
Gabron?
Still better than mistyping to Cabron ^^
If the intent is that Bohemia should not have full control over Silesia in 1419 because Silesia consisted of half a dozen semi-independant vassals of Bohemia - then let us simply change the national core of Bohemia on Silesia to a claimcore.
That is actually a better solution than the vanilla one. Still, that means Bohemia will get a full core after 30 years (circa 1450) of sitting on its ass doing nothing. I still think it should be required that it invests time and money before it gets a claimcore on it. At the same time, Poland and Brandenburg should get an opportunity to get Silesia as well, without necessarily declaring war on Bohemia.
I see no difference of Silesia with that of Brabant, a state that lasted 11 years and was made up of many semi-independant vassals, utrecht etc etc.
I see silesia as far more benficial in the context of the whole game than brabant or Siena( as an example) . The seven years war was fought for over Silesia,
Besides as we prevent other 1 state areas from going under, I cannot see why we cannot do it for Silesia
There is no difference: The silesian minor duchys were semi-independant vassals of Bohemia. So we have Bohemia on the map and don´t have the minor duchys.
And in Brabant we use the same rule: The liege is on the map and the many semi-independant vassals are not.
The seven years war was fought when the small silesian duchys were mostly inherited or had become an integral part of Bohemia and Bohemia had become a part of Austria.
Austria and Prussia contested for the province of Silesia and there is no advantage of an independant Silesia when trying to simulate that war.
The opposite is true: Prussia would be punished with more BB if it annexes an independant Silesia than if it takes the province of Silesia from Austria.
Why? Being not fully independant vassals of Bohemia everyone *should* have to declare war on Bohemia to gain Silesia. Or do you mean Poland and Brandenburg should be able to ahistorically early conquer Silesia while Bohemia simply stands by and watches - or worse, Bohemia having to declare war, using a diplomat and suffering the consequences on a state that attacked Silesia?
Exactly so if Bohemia does not renew its alliance with Silesia, or Bohemia gets wiped out by the Hussites or another country.
If Silesia brakes its vassal ties, then it should be up to Bohemia to decalre war on them, just as any other country can do to a brakeaway vassal.
That would be correct for an independant state that is a vassal of another independant state in the game. However there is no state of "Silesia". Only several minor silesian duchys that are far less independant than what a "vassal" in the game is.
If Brandenburg and Poland want to ahistorically conquer Silesia early - then they can do that. Just declare war on Bohemia and conquer the province. No need for an independant Silesia for that - after all Prussia did just that when it took Silesia from Austria later.
Excuse me, medieval history regarding that region isn't your strongest point. Brabant was the direct successor of the duchy of Lower Lorraine/Lotharingia (it remained a subsidiary title of the dukes of Brabant) and Brabant was raised from a landgraviate to a duchy in 1183.
Regarding Silesia both Bohemia and Poland should have a claim on Silesia, they already started to dispute that area in the 10th century. Initially Poland eventually won out, yet Bohemia retained a claim, however the kings of Bohemia also ended up with a claim on the Polish throne.
This eventually was solved by several treaties between the kings of Poland and Bohemia, treaty of Trentschin (1335), congress of Visegrad (1335), treaty of Namslau (1348) in which the king of Bohemia waived his claims on the Polish throne, the suzerainity over Silesia was transfered to the king of Bohemia and the king of Poland waived his claims on Silesia.
So in can see Bohemia and Poland having a claim, but Brandenburg is (your free to do so
) a-historical.
Last edited:
Ok, so a compromise solution that I can suggest, for simplicity's sake:
1) Bohemia starts owning Silesia.
2) Nobody has a core on Silesia at start.
3) Bohemia gets a national_core on Silesia in 1523 when the last duke of Opole and duke of Racibórz died and left the lands to the bohemian crown.
4) Poland remains with the events they had so far in the previous versions of AGCEEP (reclaiming kustrin, silesia and all that jazz).
5) Romanist Bohemia's capital will now be Moravia instead of Silesia.
1) Bohemia starts owning Silesia.
2) Nobody has a core on Silesia at start.
3) Bohemia gets a national_core on Silesia in 1523 when the last duke of Opole and duke of Racibórz died and left the lands to the bohemian crown.
4) Poland remains with the events they had so far in the previous versions of AGCEEP (reclaiming kustrin, silesia and all that jazz).
5) Romanist Bohemia's capital will now be Moravia instead of Silesia.
I fully agree to leave that as it is. Silesia was a part of the kingdom of Bohemia at that time. See for example the map at the right of that link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Bohemia
I don´t agree to that. In the treaty of Trentschin Ruwaard mentioned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trentschin
Poland acknowledged that the silesian duchys belonged to the Kingdom of Bohemia. So Bohemia must have a core. Not necessarily a national core as it currently is. It could just as well be a claimcore to represent that they have less manpower and more revoltrisk for the first 30 years. However Bohemia needs to be able to re-conquer it and have a casus belli on any other owner, in case that Bohemia ever loses it.
Bohemia already inherited part of Silesia before that from another of the small duchys in 1449:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Legnica
which would fit perfectly for a claimcore in 1419 that turns into a national core in 1449.
Is there any article about the Romanist Bohemians main base to be in Moravia?
True, but that very same duchy of Legnica became again independant in 1454 and remained so until 1675, when the last of the Piast dynasty dukes died.
If we start giving claimcores for small duchies inherited for short periods of time, then Poland should get a claimcore in 1454 as in that year it inherited much of upper silesia which it held on to until 1772.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Oświęcim
The Romanists never had a main base and the formal capital remained Prague, which was under Hussite control. But if there ever was anything like a ROM powerbase, it was certainly not the Silesia region.
Unlike Moravia, most of Silesia was not even lands owned by Bohemia. Silesian monarchs were the most unenthusiastic out of the whole anti-hussite coalition. Also many silesian nobles joined the hussite cause at one point. There is also the case of the hussite invasion of Silesia and a very probable threat of Silesia being overran totally by the hussites. This is impossible in-game now, as the capital has to be the last to fall, which is pretty absurd concerning that Silesia was one of the more likely provinces to split from ROM and be conquered by the Hussites.
All in all: If there was ever a "Romanist stronghold and powercenter" it was anything but Silesia.
In essence, moving the capital to Moravia will allow ROM to lose Silesia and remain only with Moravia - a much more feasible and believable scenario than ROM losing everything but Silesia. In the latter scenario, bohemia would simply cease to exist as a country, as the local silesian bishops and dukes would simply take power into their own hands and leave the claimant without any lands or forces.
I think Silesia was chosen as capital of the Romanists on basis of Sigismund having held a reichstag in Breslau right after the Hussite revolution.
Not independant - the King of Bohemia granted the lapsed fief to another person to hold it as part of Bohemia.
I don´t suggest to give Bohemia a core because it inherited a small duchy and so excerted DIRECT influence, but because the whole of Silesia was part of Bohemia and indirectly ruled by Dukes that were less than vassals.
Perhaps those old articles explain best what an independant state which would deserve a tag would be and what would not:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...es-a-country&p=5390983&viewfull=1#post5390983
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?238816-How-to-use-tags-an-idea&pp=25
I just noticed your discussion about Silesia and I agree with ConjurerDragon on this. Lands of the Bohemian Crown (which is the proper name of Kingdom of Bohemia) were going through turbulent period in the 15th century and pretty much everything was on the brink of separation from Bohemia, including Dolní Lužice, Horní Lužice (Lower Lausitz, Upper Lausitz), Silesia and EVEN Moravia. If we start to discuss how much independence Silesia should have, then it s only logical to extend the same question on both Lausitzen (spelling?) and Moravia as well. Moravia was not part of Bohemia until 1918, remember that, no matter how tightly it was tied to Bohemia. So we could easily end up in changing FtG to Crusader kings, that is to portray the feudal structure of vassals and make the game look like a mess of one province minors all across Europe, especially in Central and Eastern parts. No, this game is more about nation states than vassal relations, or more precisely about transforming vassal structures into nation states. That is, the period of history when vassal relations were still there but they were becoming more and more empty shells which nobody actually cared about (England and France first, then Spain and finally Central and Eastern Europe).
In the 14th century all these lands were held tightly together by a strong hand of Charles IV., king of Bohemia and holy Roman emperor. The Treaty of Trenčín is only one part of this. A temporary disintegration of the country due to revolution and civil war in the 15th century is no justification for removing cores from Lausitz or Silesia which have roots in the 14th century. (more exactly even much earlier but I am not going into details)
Look at the map of the lands held by Bohemian kings in the 14th century here and then look at the map of lands held by Bohemian kings in the 18th century here. Not many changes (I am not talking here about Brandenburg and home Luxemburg territories), Lausitz was given in 1635 to the saxon kurfürst John George and Silesia was lost during those well known wars during 18th century. Of course, Silesian autonomy was slighty higher than that of Lausitz or Moravia but this is a minor issue and I actually doubt it is even enough to justify in-game vassal status of Silesia. The shape of country was more or less stable and thus it is a good basis for having cores on these provinces. If we start to doubt about this, then I advise you to look at the map of Poland over centuries. With such a deconstructive approach, Poland shouldn't have cores anywhere :-D
BTW, yeah, Moravia is more proper capital of the so called Romanist Bohemia than Silesia is. Olomouc (Olmütz) was a centre of catholics while Prague was primarily hussite in the 15th century. Silesia had much less importance than Moravia at the time. It became important later during the 18th century, with the beginnings of the industrial age. Silesia in which the Prussian kings were so much interested was not the same Silesia as in Middle ages.
So I am not going to push anybody to accept that Silesia doesn't even deserve vassal status (except for period of a weak central authority during the 15th century) altough I would personally support this because in-game vassal status represens much wider independence than Silesia as an long-time integral part of the country had. But removing Bohemian cores from there is much more extreme solution in the opposite direction.
In the 14th century all these lands were held tightly together by a strong hand of Charles IV., king of Bohemia and holy Roman emperor. The Treaty of Trenčín is only one part of this. A temporary disintegration of the country due to revolution and civil war in the 15th century is no justification for removing cores from Lausitz or Silesia which have roots in the 14th century. (more exactly even much earlier but I am not going into details)
Look at the map of the lands held by Bohemian kings in the 14th century here and then look at the map of lands held by Bohemian kings in the 18th century here. Not many changes (I am not talking here about Brandenburg and home Luxemburg territories), Lausitz was given in 1635 to the saxon kurfürst John George and Silesia was lost during those well known wars during 18th century. Of course, Silesian autonomy was slighty higher than that of Lausitz or Moravia but this is a minor issue and I actually doubt it is even enough to justify in-game vassal status of Silesia. The shape of country was more or less stable and thus it is a good basis for having cores on these provinces. If we start to doubt about this, then I advise you to look at the map of Poland over centuries. With such a deconstructive approach, Poland shouldn't have cores anywhere :-D
BTW, yeah, Moravia is more proper capital of the so called Romanist Bohemia than Silesia is. Olomouc (Olmütz) was a centre of catholics while Prague was primarily hussite in the 15th century. Silesia had much less importance than Moravia at the time. It became important later during the 18th century, with the beginnings of the industrial age. Silesia in which the Prussian kings were so much interested was not the same Silesia as in Middle ages.
So I am not going to push anybody to accept that Silesia doesn't even deserve vassal status (except for period of a weak central authority during the 15th century) altough I would personally support this because in-game vassal status represens much wider independence than Silesia as an long-time integral part of the country had. But removing Bohemian cores from there is much more extreme solution in the opposite direction.
Last edited:
True, but we still need to set a line where we either see something as a country with a separate tag or not. For example, the Silesian vassal duchies had greater independance (especially in foreign affairs) than Masovia had as a vassal of Poland. Moreover, Masovia was incorporated into Poland in 1526, while many Silesian duchies survived long after that to the late 17th or 19th centuries.
So I would argue it is not the vassal status that would make silesia unworthy of a FtG tag, as if taht was the case, then Masovia or Tver would have to be removed first.
I would sooner agree with Conjurer - this is a case like with Brabant - obvious separate vassal status, but of many small states neither of which is large enough to fill an entire EU2 region.
Sure, let's consider it.
Let's see... no.
1) Well, depends what one considers large, but the majority of the population in 1419 was under Piast rule, not direct Luxemburg rule.
2) The description says it all - a vassal qualifies and the law and taxes went to the individual prince.
3) Yes, though the largest armies were fielded by the bishop of Breslau during the hussite invasion.
4) Yes, for example the mentioned negotiations and inheritance of the duchy of Oświęcim to Poland. We also had the period of 17th century negotiations of the Leignitz duchy with various sides in the 30 years war.
5) Yes, hussite war, 30 years war.
6) Yes, definitally.
7) Yes, especially in the case of Opole, Ziębice, Brzeg, Legnica.
So according to the mentioned rules, I think silesia might as well have a tag. However the rules you mentioned are not the basis of what can be implemented and what can't. If I remember correctly, to hve a change implemented 3/5th of the mebers have to agree upon it, which is hardly the case here.
Thus, without reaching a 3/5 consensus here, I guess we will just have to leave things as they are and conclude that we disagree on the matter.
The ROM capital may be seen as a separate issue and I support moving it to Moravia.
Then the revolt entry in the revolt.txt file for ROM would need to be changed so that their capital is Moravia instead of Silesia when they are released:
Code:
ROM = { #Romanist Bohemia
no = BOH
date = { day = 1 month = january year = 1419 }
expirydate = { day = 29 month = december year = 1437 }
minimum = { 314 315 329 330 }
extra = { 327 328 }
capital = [color=red]314[/color][color=yellow]315 #Moravia[/color]
culture = czech
religion = catholic
revolt = no
#ai = "Romanists.ai"
ai = "ROM_1419_Romanist.ai"
}and the 1419 scenario so that Bohemia has only a claimcore on Silesia to represent that they did not have full direct control:
in file 1419_boh.inc
Code:
nationalprovinces = {
[color=red]314[/color] 315 328 329 330 }
[color=yellow]claimedprovinces = {
314 #Silesia because of semi-independant minor duchies
}[/color]
Last edited: