Bavaria in Aberration II

[MattyG]

Bavaria has been a bit of a problem for Aberration. It grows pretty big, pretty quickly, or can. Like any major, it can tank occassionally, if everything aligns against it correctly. Of course, I'm referring to an AI situation here. If you are playing Swabia in SP, Bavaria doesn't have a chance (unless, like, you're a bad player) and in MP, if your opponents are worth much they will make sure you don't grow exponentially (unless, like, they're all bad players).

We have tried to make a few structural changes to Germany, removing a few excess single-province minors and improving the AI for these minors so they they will perform a little more sensibly in war and start hopeless conflicts a little less often. But it only helps a little.

The big 'problem'with Bavaria is that high ranked leaders steal seiges. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. It isn't that they get leaders, that's their storyline. But when the German region spend the first 40 years in conflicts, almost all of which involve Bavaria because of its extent and alliances, it gets involved in and steal every seige and ends up capturing many provinces that it 'shouldn't'.

I propose two solutions.

1. In the first 40 years of the game a lot of the other German states would be given monarch leaders. Nothing fancy, just 2/2/2/0 standard leaders, but with the ability to keep control of a seige they start. And, should bavaria be player owned, to actually steala seige from a bavaria that tries to do too much too early.

2. Bavaria needs an event in about 1470-85 that mikl and I call The Sons of Friedrich. Or maybe Sigismund, or Heinrich. I can't remember who the monarch is in that period. Anyway, he dies. If bavaria is smallish, nothing happens, but if it still owns diverse properties such as Pfalz and Dutch provinces, then his sons conflict over ownership. he has three strong sons all of whom want a part of the family inheritance. They go to war, and the 'physically-unconnected' provinces break away as separate states. The main chunk of Bavaria retains cores there and can hope to win them back, but it's neat storyline that can also have later beneficial ramifications (like reinheriting them in two generations time) as well as breaking up a Bavaria that blobs too early.

Thoughts?

MattyG

 

[unmerged(36826)]

Well I think that the breaking up of Bavaria should only occur if they go seriously beyond their starting provinces, because it would be very strange if they act pacificistic and lose their provinces without fighting a war. Also that would leave Bavaria as little more than a slightly bigger than usual minor, and Hungary or Swabia would undoubtably take either the successor states or Bavaria itself.
So good in comcept but it should only trigger when Bavaria own an unholy amount of provinces.

 

[MattyG]

An excellent point.

There does need to be problems in the Dutch provinces for Bavaria, but these can come with the Reformation.

I will think about what an oversized limit might be and post something when I have a chance.

Then again, the monarch-leaders-for-minors may do the trick nicely.

 

[unmerged(16159)]

Well I think that the breaking up of Bavaria should only occur if they go seriously beyond their starting provinces, because it would be very strange if they act pacificistic and lose their provinces without fighting a war. Also that would leave Bavaria as little more than a slightly bigger than usual minor, and Hungary or Swabia would undoubtably take either the successor states or Bavaria itself.
So good in comcept but it should only trigger when Bavaria own an unholy amount of provinces.

Agreed. The idea is to control rampant states like Hansa and Bavaria and Swabia before the Reformation, so it can occur as Aberrationally as possible.

I like giving the smaller states leaders as well, but does this not negate Bavaria's single great advantage in the early game? Or will their leaders then only prove conclusive as an MP against an MP foe?

 

[MattyG]

Bavaria has a king, so he will keep control of any siege he initiates. At present Bavaria has two leaders and the surrounding states none. The result, when the 1419 wars begin, is that Bavaria wins its own sieges and then turns up late for its allies' sieges only to steal them and grow by four and five provinces very quickly. Now, this will always happen in SP because we are all so much better than the AI, but we need to be able to slow down that undeserved growth for Bavaria as ai in MP or as a player (especially) in MP. Currently, MP groups that permit Bavaria in the line up of selectables (unless Swabia, Hansa, Hungary and Bohemia are in play) are asking for trouble.

Giving nations like Franconia a monarch leader of 2/2/2 will only mean that they get to keep the sieges they initiate and win. Fair's fair.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

As I see it given the aberrated history Bavaria should be able to steal a goodly number of sieges...they are going to be the HRE most of the time! And any idiot German prince that decided that waging war on the emperor was a good long term move ran the risk of losing his throne; not to mention that if BAY is part of an alliance and they are HRE the war is not with Bavaria but with the Emperor.

And since all nations in the empire derive their sovereignty from the emperor....and it is upto the emperor what is to be done with these newly forfeited lands..so it would not matter if the other members of the alliance had uber leaders as they wouldn't have a say in the matter one whit.

From a historical perspective not having the Wittelsbach dynasties power broken prior to 1419 leaves them in a position more powerful then the Hapsburgs were IRL for a great deal their history: The Wittelsbachs flat out own two electoral votes( Pfalz and the Margravate of Brandenburg), may own a third (MAI not sure on that one, they have the province but that is no guarentee that it was not transfered), and will more often then not have the vote of KOL in their pocket as well. All things considered they do not have to make the same kind of deals that the Hapsburgs did to become emperor, they can just vote themselves in without trading away imperial power or bribing half the countries nobles. The Bavarians were no slouches diplomatically throughout the games timeline, were the only other dynasty IRL to get voted HRE in it, and they always managed to marry extremely well. And considering the extended family (all the Wittelsbach branches including Pfalz-Zweibruken who most likely never see Stockholm in ABE), they have a pretty good gene pool of generals to boot.

I am amazed that the Bavarians don't form a unified Germany by 1500.

 

[yourworstnightm]

Yes, the Bavarians should have the imperial throne, and usually have becuse they controll the vote, but all princes should not be ok with that, also the emperor might still need supporting princes on his side especially when dealing with Swabia, The Hansa and the Luxembourgs.

 

[unmerged(16159)]

Yes, the Bavarians should have the imperial throne, and usually have becuse they controll the vote, but all princes should not be ok with that, also the emperor might still need supporting princes on his side especially when dealing with Swabia, The Hansa and the Luxembourgs.

The HRE votes almost become a separate series of events, with deals to be done, and votes to be bought.

Is it possible to select HRE by event?

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Yes, the Bavarians should have the imperial throne, and usually have becuse they controll the vote, but all princes should not be ok with that, also the emperor might still need supporting princes on his side especially when dealing with Swabia, The Hansa and the Luxembourgs.

Of course not all the Princes of the Empire are going to be okay with the Bavarians winning the election, there has to be somebody else running for the job and they are bound to have their supporters and friends.

The overall point I was trying to make here though was; the Hapsburgs gained the throne the first time by having it handed to them and then held onto it by methods that would not have to be used by a house that actually held a pair of electoral votes. They have to make far more compromises, promises, and peddle far more patrronage then would the Wittelsbachs. As the Hapsburgs have a full five pairs of electoral butt cheeks to be kiss and cajoled into voting for them, whereas the Wittelsbachs only have 2 or 3 for a sweep in the voting or just one to win by a simple majority. This by default gives you a much stronger Emperor then IRL since the house being elected has had to give away far less of the farm so to speak. And with one of the needed votes being that of the archbishop of Koln, an office that the Wittelsbachs get an awful lot of the time (that is if they don't already control the archbishop of Mainz vote in Aberration), then they don't have to campaign for election at all in many cases. And if they do control the Mainz vote in Aberration in addition to the PFA and BRA ones then they don't have to run period, they defacto become a hereditary monarchy.

The real politicing in either scenario would be in the reichstag where the nobility gets to vote and that is far more volitile then the Imperial elections. Luckily though it doesn't take as large a concession to move the vote of the Graf of Limpurg as it would an Elector for instance, and it still leaves you with a by historical standards that we are used to from RL, strong Emperor.

Personaly, I find this to be one of the more fascinating mods as alternate outcomes to historical events is a bit of a passion of mine. And the possibility of a strong unified German state coming into being in the 15th-16th century is a particularly diverting subject. The impetus would be there for it to happen, strong dynasty with a major electoral edge and strong military and the multiple impeti of watching France come apart, Kalmar unify and the rise of a strong Hungary and Poland. Germany would have strong neighbours on three sides of her and easy pickings on the other. If she stayed fractured then she could and would be seen as a tasty treat by her unified neighbours, and it is almost always better to be the predator then the prey....

 

[unmerged(36449)]

The HRE votes almost become a separate series of events, with deals to be done, and votes to be bought.

Is it possible to select HRE by event?

in theory yes... there is a list of the Emperors IRL in the game that I came across by accident. I imported the formation of Germany event into a straight vanilla scenario and activated it via F12...and sure enough there was a monarch list in the save game file.

 

[unmerged(16159)]

Of course not all the Princes of the Empire are going to be okay with the Bavarians winning the election, there has to be somebody else running for the job and they are bound to have their supporters and friends.

The overall point I was trying to make here though was; the Hapsburgs gained the throne the first time by having it handed to them and then held onto it by methods that would not have to be used by a house that actually held a pair of electoral votes. They have to make far more compromises, promises, and peddle far more patrronage then would the Wittelsbachs. As the Hapsburgs have a full five pairs of electoral butt cheeks to be kiss and cajoled into voting for them, whereas the Wittelsbachs only have 2 or 3 for a sweep in the voting or just one to win by a simple majority. This by default gives you a much stronger Emperor then IRL since the house being elected has had to give away far less of the farm so to speak. And with one of the needed votes being that of the archbishop of Koln, an office that the Wittelsbachs get an awful lot of the time (that is if they don't already control the archbishop of Mainz vote in Aberration), then they don't have to campaign for election at all in many cases. And if they do control the Mainz vote in Aberration in addition to the PFA and BRA ones then they don't have to run period, they defacto become a hereditary monarchy.

Yep. There is also an interesting scenario whereby the non-bavarian germans react against the HRE simply because the Wittelsbachs are always in the post. The HRE becomes more irrelevant outside southern germany, particularly after the Reformation.

Koln is run by the Hanseatic League in this game. This might make the League kingmakers?

The real politicing in either scenario would be in the reichstag where the nobility gets to vote and that is far more volitile then the Imperial elections. Luckily though it doesn't take as large a concession to move the vote of the Graf of Limpurg as it would an Elector for instance, and it still leaves you with a by historical standards that we are used to from RL, strong Emperor.

Personaly, I find this to be one of the more fascinating mods as alternate outcomes to historical events is a bit of a passion of mine. And the possibility of a strong unified German state coming into being in the 15th-16th century is a particularly diverting subject. The impetus would be there for it to happen, strong dynasty with a major electoral edge and strong military and the multiple impeti of watching France come apart, Kalmar unify and the rise of a strong Hungary and Poland. Germany would have strong neighbours on three sides of her and easy pickings on the other. If she stayed fractured then she could and would be seen as a tasty treat by her unified neighbours, and it is almost always better to be the predator then the prey....

Yep, I love the idea of exploring the consequences of an early Germany. But this would be better happening after or as a consequence of the Reformation, since otherwise we are overbalancing the game. Incompetent has made some suggestions that the Bavarians could look at the Reformation as a kind of Crusade, with the carrot of winning the creation of an uberGermany. I reckon his idea and your ideas are about the same here. There needs to be a controlling infuence, perhaps protestant. I am working on a Reformation era protestant anti-crusade for the Swabians, on the assumption that the Bavarians DO get written up in that way.

 

[MattyG]

Of course not all the Princes of the Empire are going to be okay with the Bavarians winning the election, there has to be somebody else running for the job and they are bound to have their supporters and friends.

The overall point I was trying to make here though was; the Hapsburgs gained the throne the first time by having it handed to them and then held onto it by methods that would not have to be used by a house that actually held a pair of electoral votes. They have to make far more compromises, promises, and peddle far more patrronage then would the Wittelsbachs. As the Hapsburgs have a full five pairs of electoral butt cheeks to be kiss and cajoled into voting for them, whereas the Wittelsbachs only have 2 or 3 for a sweep in the voting or just one to win by a simple majority. This by default gives you a much stronger Emperor then IRL since the house being elected has had to give away far less of the farm so to speak. And with one of the needed votes being that of the archbishop of Koln, an office that the Wittelsbachs get an awful lot of the time (that is if they don't already control the archbishop of Mainz vote in Aberration), then they don't have to campaign for election at all in many cases. And if they do control the Mainz vote in Aberration in addition to the PFA and BRA ones then they don't have to run period, they defacto become a hereditary monarchy.

The real politicing in either scenario would be in the reichstag where the nobility gets to vote and that is far more volitile then the Imperial elections. Luckily though it doesn't take as large a concession to move the vote of the Graf of Limpurg as it would an Elector for instance, and it still leaves you with a by historical standards that we are used to from RL, strong Emperor.

Personaly, I find this to be one of the more fascinating mods as alternate outcomes to historical events is a bit of a passion of mine. And the possibility of a strong unified German state coming into being in the 15th-16th century is a particularly diverting subject. The impetus would be there for it to happen, strong dynasty with a major electoral edge and strong military and the multiple impeti of watching France come apart, Kalmar unify and the rise of a strong Hungary and Poland. Germany would have strong neighbours on three sides of her and easy pickings on the other. If she stayed fractured then she could and would be seen as a tasty treat by her unified neighbours, and it is almost always better to be the predator then the prey....

Sounds to me like you and mikl need to be working closely on the Formation of Germany events. An exciting prospect.

But it should NOT be something that happens too easily. It ought to happen in - say - only one in 5 games where there is only ai countries in Germany, and players should have a tough time as well.

See, the important thing is that Germany did NOT form until 1870s. EU2 is a great game but it lacks the tools and the subtlety to deal with the German minors and their long-term independence. It isn't helped by the travesty they call Diplo-Annexation ...

Aberration ESPECIALLY is about avoiding blobs developing in the 1500s, as happens in every game of vanilla and AGCEEP. We can't prevent players doing that, but we need to avoid ai blobs as much as possible. Yes, we want our ai countries to fight better, but not to form enourmous masses regularly. (Well, not in central Europe.) So we need to work so these things don't happen. If people feel that the minors would always bow to Bavarian kings on who gets the spoils of battle (non monarrchs for the minors, as suggested) then ideas need to come out about how else to avoid ai Bavaria going nuts all the time.

 

[yourworstnightm]

Maybe Germany could be formed in late game if Bavaria is strong enough (Hansa and Swabia left out if still alive).

Anyway Bavaria start with a lot of electoral votes:
Brandenburg, Pfalz (consistsing of two votes, Pfalz and Trier) and Mainz, which mean 4 votes.
Hansa have one vote: Köln
The Luxembourg dynasty has one vote: Bohemia, if the Hussites win the revolts they will controll the vote since it belong to the province Bohemia
Also there's the last vote in Sachsen.

Bavaria start with 4 of 7 votes, should be elected emperor.

 

[MattyG]

Nobody flame me for this as I know I am ignorent of the HRE ...

This is Aberration.

Is there anything in the history, the structure, the administration or whatever of the HRE that would prevent us changing it so there are MORE votes available?

It could be an event prior to 1419, ior one that happens (or could happen) in which the Pope (presumably) adds additional electors.

Again, no flaming ....

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Yep. There is also an interesting scenario whereby the non-bavarian germans react against the HRE simply because the Wittelsbachs are always in the post. The HRE becomes more irrelevant outside southern germany, particularly after the Reformation.

Koln is run by the Hanseatic League in this game. This might make the League kingmakers?



Yep, I love the idea of exploring the consequences of an early Germany. But this would be better happening after or as a consequence of the Reformation, since otherwise we are overbalancing the game. Incompetent has made some suggestions that the Bavarians could look at the Reformation as a kind of Crusade, with the carrot of winning the creation of an uberGermany. I reckon his idea and your ideas are about the same here. There needs to be a controlling infuence, perhaps protestant. I am working on a Reformation era protestant anti-crusade for the Swabians, on the assumption that the Bavarians DO get written up in that way.

personally I default to a historical rather then a gameist view on things. History and nations are not balanced, and therefore there should only be the most cursory effort made to balancing them in this game.

Sure it sucks for fans of some particular German minors, or other minor nations in other parts of the world but that is just the way it goes those nations are "minors" for a reason. That being said I don't see that a unification of Germany should be a result of the reformation, it would tend to be exactly the opposite as I am referring to a political union/solution and the reformation version would be one of force majeur imposition.

And any old clod handed Prince can do that, it doesn't get you "Germany" but rather X,Y, Or Z nation covering all the territory of what was Germany.

No the unification events should be pre reformation when there are far fewer vectors tearing the HRE apart.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Sounds to me like you and mikl need to be working closely on the Formation of Germany events. An exciting prospect.

But it should NOT be something that happens too easily. It ought to happen in - say - only one in 5 games where there is only ai countries in Germany, and players should have a tough time as well.

See, the important thing is that Germany did NOT form until 1870s. EU2 is a great game but it lacks the tools and the subtlety to deal with the German minors and their long-term independence. It isn't helped by the travesty they call Diplo-Annexation ...

Aberration ESPECIALLY is about avoiding blobs developing in the 1500s, as happens in every game of vanilla and AGCEEP. We can't prevent players doing that, but we need to avoid ai blobs as much as possible. Yes, we want our ai countries to fight better, but not to form enourmous masses regularly. (Well, not in central Europe.) So we need to work so these things don't happen. If people feel that the minors would always bow to Bavarian kings on who gets the spoils of battle (non monarrchs for the minors, as suggested) then ideas need to come out about how else to avoid ai Bavaria going nuts all the time.

why is that? Why is so much effort being put into trying to balance for the sake of game play what historically (and always given a choice particularly with this game, give the nod to history and screw game balance), is NOT balanced or balancable. If BAY is the emperor, and IF BAY is fighting as part of an alliance a rebellious vassal of said emperor, that IS all she wrote. The leader of X, Y, Or Z member of the empire made the foolish mistake of going against the person that is THE source of their power and lost, so they pay the ultimate price. Sucks to be them, but then again any German minor stupid enough to go against the throne deserves to have their estates seized (happened ALOT).

See, the thing that I just can not wrap my head around is why any of the mod groups are making any effort trying to balance a 400 year block of global history so that the results come out the way that WE know them.

The only way to do that is to eliminate the "B" option on all events, period. And that is absolutely no fun, why bother playing if you can't change anything? I can understand where people would like to be able to play their particular nation during a particular historical event chain later in the game such as the Napoleonic wars; heck I would. There is only one major problem with that: Given the ability for the game to make choices other then historical, you are by definition NOT going to have the world that you know from your history books be the result.

There ARE going to be blobs formed, just as there were in our history; Austria was pretty blobby as were a few other nations. The blobs are just going to be different is all. It should neither be encouraged nor discouraged, but rather seen as a natural outcome of the flow of "history".

Sure there are going to be some fans of the minors that get their knickers in a twist over it, and it is going to tick off some "gamers"; but that is an acceptable outcome. No, really it is. History, is NOT a game, and in a world where most graduating seniors in the US can't identify some major nations...I could give a flaming bucket of pig vomit what a gamer thinks of the game "balance". Now the players of the minors I have far more sympathy for, but to be honest they knew it was going to be a challenge to even survive with their nation of choice when they started up the game.

And a lot of that independence of the various petty states of the HRE was as a direct result of a weak emperor, something that aberration doesn't have. With the Wittelsbachs controlling the majority of electoral votes by default they do not have to kiss anyones butt to get elected, and that gets you a strong emperor. A strong emperor allows you to dole out goodies in ways that neuter your enemies and strengthen your friends to a far greater degree then IRL. And it makes sure that the major rivals for BAY in Germany are servile.

How is that?

The Hansa, although wealthy were still IMPERIAL cities for the most part. Their sovereignty and city charters were granted by the Emperor, and could be rescinded BY the Emperor. They were still subject to Imperial law, and more importantly the area surrounding the cities that do the job of feeding the population and providing water etc? They were owned by people deeply beholden to the HRE, the nobility. The Hansa are only a power IF you have a weak emperor, a strong one and the Hansa spend the bulk of their time making sure that he is happy and well funded with tax revenues. Yup, the Hansa were subject to Imperial taxation.

Swabia is also mostly a non factor, as they to are subjects of the HRE, derive their sovereignty and legitimacy FROM the HRE (they would be considered immediate nobility as oppossed to mediatized in other words they are granted their lands and position directly by the emperor and not an intermediate noble or lord). And as such would no more go against the throne then any other vassal of the HRE.

Because to do so is to forfeit entirely your lands.

That being said the reason that most of the members of the HRE remain "free" is more due to tradition in aberration and should not be given much more weight then that. It was tradition and customary and that can change given circumstances.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Nobody flame me for this as I know I am ignorent of the HRE ...

This is Aberration.

Is there anything in the history, the structure, the administration or whatever of the HRE that would prevent us changing it so there are MORE votes available?

It could be an event prior to 1419, ior one that happens (or could happen) in which the Pope (presumably) adds additional electors.

Again, no flaming ....

No there is nothing to prevent it, but keep in mind that they did not create any new electors for quite awhile IRL with a weak emperor. There would have to be a considerable justification for doing so however.

 

[RappaR]

http://www.europa2.ru/cgi-bin/leagu...league=ic&season=IP-Poland&lang=eng&choicet=9
Bayern in multiplayer.

 

[MattyG]

why is that? Why is so much effort being put into trying to balance for the sake of game play what historically (and always given a choice particularly with this game, give the nod to history and screw game balance), is NOT balanced or balancable.

Balance is not an either/or condition. There are degrees of balance (or lack thereof). Having a MP game where five players are playing German and French minors and one person is playing Castille/Spain has less balance than, say if that last person were also playing a French or German minor. We are aiming here in Aberration to have a sets of nations that are closer to one another in size and resources than they are in, say, Vanilla.

If BAY is the emperor, and IF BAY is fighting as part of an alliance a rebellious vassal of said emperor, that IS all she wrote. The leader of X, Y, Or Z member of the empire made the foolish mistake of going against the person that is THE source of their power and lost, so they pay the ultimate price. Sucks to be them, but then again any German minor stupid enough to go against the throne deserves to have their estates seized (happened ALOT).

See, the thing that I just can not wrap my head around is why any of the mod groups are making any effort trying to balance a 400 year block of global history so that the results come out the way that WE know them.

However, this is not a historical mod. Intentionally and deliberately not a historical mod. It is an alternative history whose premises and presumed outcomes are designed to offer a greater balance to the multiplayer gaming experience.

Of the infinite number of alternate directions that the world could have gone in, we have 'selected' those events which led it to a point that is favourable to a more 'balanced' gaming scenario. It is also one filled with lots of variety, great stories and more challenges than the vanilla world.

We are certainly not trying to make things come out "the way we know them". Very much the opposite.

The only way to do that is to eliminate the "B" option on all events, period. And that is absolutely no fun, why bother playing if you can't change anything? I can understand where people would like to be able to play their particular nation during a particular historical event chain later in the game such as the Napoleonic wars; heck I would. There is only one major problem with that: Given the ability for the game to make choices other then historical, you are by definition NOT going to have the world that you know from your history books be the result.

Yep, exactly.

There ARE going to be blobs formed, just as there were in our history; Austria was pretty blobby as were a few other nations. The blobs are just going to be different is all. It should neither be encouraged nor discouraged, but rather seen as a natural outcome of the flow of "history".

Blobs may well form. The idea here in Aberration is that they will form less often and less quickly than they do in the vanilla/AGCEEP versions of historical mods. One of the worst offenders in the past has been Bavaria, because of its monarch leaders and its ability to swallow the German minors through diploannexation , often by the early 1500s. Neither historical nor - more importantly - what we want from Aberration.

Sure there are going to be some fans of the minors that get their knickers in a twist over it, and it is going to tick off some "gamers"; but that is an acceptable outcome. No, really it is. History, is NOT a game, and in a world where most graduating seniors in the US can't identify some major nations...I could give a flaming bucket of pig vomit what a gamer thinks of the game "balance". Now the players of the minors I have far more sympathy for, but to be honest they knew it was going to be a challenge to even survive with their nation of choice when they started up the game.

OK, that's fine, but that's not what most of us are here for. We are playing to make history, not replicate it.

And a lot of that independence of the various petty states of the HRE was as a direct result of a weak emperor, something that aberration doesn't have. With the Wittelsbachs controlling the majority of electoral votes by default they do not have to kiss anyones butt to get elected, and that gets you a strong emperor. A strong emperor allows you to dole out goodies in ways that neuter your enemies and strengthen your friends to a far greater degree then IRL. And it makes sure that the major rivals for BAY in Germany are servile.

How is that?

The Hansa, although wealthy were still IMPERIAL cities for the most part. Their sovereignty and city charters were granted by the Emperor, and could be rescinded BY the Emperor. They were still subject to Imperial law, and more importantly the area surrounding the cities that do the job of feeding the population and providing water etc? They were owned by people deeply beholden to the HRE, the nobility. The Hansa are only a power IF you have a weak emperor, a strong one and the Hansa spend the bulk of their time making sure that he is happy and well funded with tax revenues. Yup, the Hansa were subject to Imperial taxation.

Swabia is also mostly a non factor, as they to are subjects of the HRE, derive their sovereignty and legitimacy FROM the HRE (they would be considered immediate nobility as oppossed to mediatized in other words they are granted their lands and position directly by the emperor and not an intermediate noble or lord). And as such would no more go against the throne then any other vassal of the HRE.

Because to do so is to forfeit entirely your lands.

That being said the reason that most of the members of the HRE remain "free" is more due to tradition in aberration and should not be given much more weight then that. It was tradition and customary and that can change given circumstances.

OK, now we are getting somewhere.

First, who says we don't have a weak emperor? Who says that all of the conditions you have outlined about taxation and sovereignty still apply? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. That is for us to determine to acheive the outcomes we want. We are in control of the history here, not the other way around.

The Aberrating of the history of Europe does not begin in 1419. That's when the game begins. If we so desire it and can consider the ramifications for it, then we can stretch back as far as we want and need to in order to make the changes we desire.

Or, we can create a condition or event that changed things more recently. We could decide that a particularly weak emperor in the 1370s - 1390s was so manipulated by the nobility that he agreed to alter the then-accepted notions of imperial rule and priviledge. Maybe, maybe not.

So, stretch your imagation out and consider what conditions may have needed to exist or events to have occured for the Hansa to be more independent, for Swabia to not have to cow-tow to the emperor or whatever. It is all possible, it could all have happened.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Balance is not an either/or condition. There are degrees of balance (or lack thereof). Having a MP game where five players are playing German and French minors and one person is playing Castille/Spain has less balance than, say if that last person were also playing a French or German minor. We are aiming here in Aberration to have a sets of nations that are closer to one another in size and resources than they are in, say, Vanilla.



However, this is not a historical mod. Intentionally and deliberately not a historical mod. It is an alternative history whose premises and presumed outcomes are designed to offer a greater balance to the multiplayer gaming experience.

Of the infinite number of alternate directions that the world could have gone in, we have 'selected' those events which led it to a point that is favourable to a more 'balanced' gaming scenario. It is also one filled with lots of variety, great stories and more challenges than the vanilla world.

We are certainly not trying to make things come out "the way we know them". Very much the opposite.




Yep, exactly.



Blobs may well form. The idea here in Aberration is that they will form less often and less quickly than they do in the vanilla/AGCEEP versions of historical mods. One of the worst offenders in the past has been Bavaria, because of its monarch leaders and its ability to swallow the German minors through diploannexation , often by the early 1500s. Neither historical nor - more importantly - what we want from Aberration.



OK, that's fine, but that's not what most of us are here for. We are playing to make history, not replicate it.




OK, now we are getting somewhere.

First, who says we don't have a weak emperor? Who says that all of the conditions you have outlined about taxation and sovereignty still apply? Maybe they do, maybe they don't. That is for us to determine to acheive the outcomes we want. We are in control of the history here, not the other way around.

The Aberrating of the history of Europe does not begin in 1419. That's when the game begins. If we so desire it and can consider the ramifications for it, then we can stretch back as far as we want and need to in order to make the changes we desire.

Or, we can create a condition or event that changed things more recently. We could decide that a particularly weak emperor in the 1370s - 1390s was so manipulated by the nobility that he agreed to alter the then-accepted notions of imperial rule and priviledge. Maybe, maybe not.

So, stretch your imagation out and consider what conditions may have needed to exist or events to have occured for the Hansa to be more independent, for Swabia to not have to cow-tow to the emperor or whatever. It is all possible, it could all have happened.

Well given that a simple solution is more desirable then a complex one, and having the HRE being LESS powerful then he was IRL during the same time frame it is far more likely that they would be as powerful in aberration as they were in the historic not less.

There must be some kind of basic reference to history for us to even have a discussion on this subject. And the sad truth of the matter is that it is far, far more likely that you will have no weaker an emperor at the start of an aberration game then you would have in vanilla. But for the sake of argument if you guys want to have a substantially weaker emperor by all means go ahead, I can't think of a set of circumstances that would lead you to them giving up anymore then was done in the Golden Bull...

edit:

In my opinion one of the strengths of aberration as a mod, especially an alternate history mod, is it degree of plausibility. Could England have come flying apart as a kingdom given an alternative Hastings? Certainly, it had not been unified for very long and there were some residual regional feelings that could come to the for with a little nurturing by a warlord with delusions of grandeur or two (and there always seems to be a few lying around the side stages of history). The same could happen to France, although I think that the more likely outcome is one that can not be handled by the game engine (Pope makes the crown elective much like the HRE). The whole rest of the lot also is credible/plausible enough to be engaging and vibrant.

But there is a fine line therein as well, only so much you can tweak before it flies in the face of credulity and totter off into the realm of the banal and ridiculous. And one of those would be to weaken the HRE below its' historically known level as you imply may need be done.

With England gone, France now a squabbling puppy pile of successor states and Spain still firmly in the grasp of the infidel (not to mention the heretic Byzantines still all to alive and kicking), what possible and plausible reason would there be to weaken the last strong arm of Christendom (with no offense meant to our Orthodox brethren, just trying to speak in period here)? If anything the tend would be to make it stronger, as we can see from recent history IRL, nothing concentrates power like a perceived outside threat.

Besides, the kind of independence of SWA and HAN from the HRE you are looking for could not be achieved as long as the HRE was still in existence. Which in turn could be the solution to your problem however bold a solution that may be: Pre-start German unification, or a unification event very shortly after the start of the game. It can be assumed the "A" choice for SWA and HAN will be "NO!!" to the unification, and thereby guarentee their independence of that nasty bit of imperial entanglement; but it would also guarentee extreme emnity between the three. But it will tend to cost you some of the German minors.

But barring that there is not much that can be done as long as they are subjects of the Empire and Emperor, even the Electors who were given regal status and privaledge by the Emperor were still subjects OF the Emperor and answerable to him. And I don't think that you can give Swabia and the Hansa much above being considered on the same level as a King.