Bavaria in Aberration II

[unmerged(36449)]

There are good storyline justifications for a powerful Bavaria. But Aberration II is meant to be a 'functional' mod, as MattyG has said. One of the balance principles is that, while we can't stop ambitious players going on an annexing spree, we won't feed such an empire with cores, cultures and inheritances past a certain limit.

As such a 'legitimate' empire of Charlemagne is out of the question, and even a country covering the HRE is beyond what would normally be catered for by events, given the wealth of the provinces in question.

The fringes of the HRE are home to the capitals of 5 Aberration majors IIRC (not counting Bavaria), maybe 6 if we make Bohemia a major. It's pretty crowded, and almost inevitable that 1 or 2 won't survive. But if more than a couple get gobbled up by a single power, however it happens, the balance will likely be broken, as even if they later revolt away, they're never going to recover major status under AI control.

The challenge here for us is similar to that of Byzantium or the Caliphate: in theory, all these powers have claims to large areas of land, too large to be balanced. So we say instead that they only have the strength diplomatically and internally to pursue some of these claims, so eg Byzantium can happily go east or go for Italy, but if it tries both the internal costs will outweigh the benefits. Similarly I think Bavaria should be able to continue to have a loose hold over the whole HRE, or get a tight hold over a large part of the HRE, but if it tries to rule the lot as if it were an absolute monarchy, it's going to be in for a world of hurt, as neither neighbouring majors and the princes of the HRE would stand for it.

well as long as we are clear that the reasoning is strictly a gamist one and not one based on probable historical outcomes or anything remotely resembling reality; I am reasonably cool with it.

But be aware that the design philosophy you are talking about is in itself self limiting as it is one that imposes artificial constraints upon the players and somewhat forces the game to be played out within as big a sandbox as you construct.

So in a manner of speaking you are by definition limiting the playability of the mod from its' inception as the players have to conform to the paths that you have laid out for them to a much greater degree then in other mods.

 

[unmerged(16159)]

well as long as we are clear that the reasoning is strictly a gamist one and not one based on probable historical outcomes or anything remotely resembling reality; I am reasonably cool with it.

But be aware that the design philosophy you are talking about is in itself self limiting as it is one that imposes artificial constraints upon the players and somewhat forces the game to be played out within as big a sandbox as you construct.

But I think that has been the goal from the begining, to create a rough MP playability, something lacking in vanilla EU2.

In some ways it's a post-rationalisation. Work out a good storyline, then fit events to ensure that the the story balances all the other stories out there. There has to be some artificial constraint, otherwise we'd all be creating major powers the size of France or Spain or England.

So in a manner of speaking you are by definition limiting the playability of the mod from its' inception as the players have to conform to the paths that you have laid out for them to a much greater degree then in other mods.

And it doesn't limit the playability, any more than Vanilla or AGCEEP for example, which really only have single story for each nation. Quite the opposite. We should be creating a storyline that challenges the player, and offers them different streams of choices. Most ABEII nations have 2-3 separate paths. With Bavaria we should be able to create, and justify historically, 2 good stories.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Incompetant, its nice to have your eloquent and rational writing back into the dabates on the forum.

The second issue is how this Dennis will look. The functional aspect of the game requires a number of states that are playable in a multiplayer environment. It's abit different with Cordoba, Byzantium and the Caliphate, as these actually would be smaller at the start than the pan-German state, plus they are on the fringes, surrounded by poorer provinces, further from the heartland of European wealth and manpower. If we start such a nation in 1419 then there is really only one selectable country. If Dennis forms soon afterwards, than presumably anyone playing Bohemia, Swabia, Hansa etc would get a quick Game Over when Dennis forms. Either option provides for little gaming interest if one is playing in that region and not playing Bavaria.

From a gaming perspective, the plausible-history aspect that involves an Imperial Dennis ruled by the Wittelsbachs might be instead that it formed earlier, in about 1395, in art a response to the collapse of France and the additional power-vacuum created to the west. However, by 1419 the powerful emperor who formed Dennis has been superceded by someone with both more ambition and less ability. The wars of revolt have just started and Dennis is splintering.

Accordingly, we have the premise for players to take on different nations. We have our premise for the Hansas existence as instead a nation, not merely a collection of semi-independent tax-paying cities. We have a premise for Bavaria weakened in the first 40 years, rather than blobbing uncontrollably. And we have a challenging scenario for a solo player taking on the Japan of Europe as it tries to hold it all together.

Matty

an interesting take on it.

Let me propose a possible twist that occurred to me before logging in today:

The Crown of France is vacant. The Kingdom was once part of the Empire of Charlemagne. The Pope is going to want to keep the successor states of Gaul from clawing each others eyes out with the infidel just over the Pyrenees and they would want to keep the HRE from launching a series of expansionistic wars into France to reclaim any territory they may consider to be part of the old empire.....

So, the Pope expands the membership of the HRE to include the Gaulish successor states. This way he can get away with not elevating some of them to Kingdoms (leaves some leverage room), instead opting for elevation to elector or grandduke.

This would limit also Bavaria from Blobbing and make her actually have to compete for the throne as there are now more electors out there she no longer has an electoral lock.

It also seems to me that it is a plausible outcome to the situation.

 

[unmerged(16159)]

an interesting take on it.

Let me propose a possible twist that occurred to me before logging in today:

The Crown of France is vacant. The Kingdom was once part of the Empire of Charlemagne. The Pope is going to want to keep the successor states of Gaul from clawing each others eyes out with the infidel just over the Pyrenees and they would want to keep the HRE from launching a series of expansionistic wars into France to reclaim any territory they may consider to be part of the old empire.....

So, the Pope expands the membership of the HRE to include the Gaulish successor states. This way he can get away with not elevating some of them to Kingdoms (leaves some leverage room), instead opting for elevation to elector or grandduke.

It also seems to me that it is a plausible outcome to the situation.[/

As plausible as some of the other things suggested. I like it, and I like the idea of the Pope intervening in secular affairs since generally in EU2, The Papal States are pretty quiet.

Does the Pope have the power to do this? Or are you suggesting a stronger pope? What is the motivation for these states in Gaul to join the HRE?

This would limit also Bavaria from Blobbing and make her actually have to compete for the throne as there are now more electors out there she no longer has an electoral lock.

The other simple way is to start Bavaria with fewer Electorates.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

You make a fair point about the viability of the Hanseatic League as a state, even in Aberration II. But it's there, and the rationale is reasonably sound, particularly due to their wealth, their perceived neutrality, the potential power of their Verhansung (economic sanctions), and the fractured nature of the politics in Aberrated Germany, British Isles, Scandinavia and France. The events leading up to it's creation are deliberately placed in-game to provide some of the colour and reason for it's existence.

But I do think we need to reassess it's status within the HRE. I wonder whether - like the Swiss - they are allowed to, or even choose to exist outside the HRE to maintain a neutral role to gain trading status, but therefore lose some diplomatic status. (Perhaps also extra BB if they DoW anyone!)

And Koln? Perhaps events see it flick in and out of independence, perhaps existing with Hansa initially, then more in control of the HRE as Bavaria get stronger, perhaps back into the League if Bavaria look frail and the HRE weaker.



Part of the issue here is that in IRL and AbeII what we understand as Swabia was actually half of the Habsburg family, so they had a lot of ego and respect for the HRE as an institution, but perhaps also a real reason for wanting to stay in the HRE to see their claims to Bohemia and Styria continue to be legitimised. The choice to stay or go represents whether they think they will reunite the family, and whether Bavaria will let it.

After Sigismund dies, there is no heir, other than (in AbeII) an illegitimate son, and the player has a choice to end the Habsburg line in Swabia and forego all claims to Styria and other Habsburg lands. They could go to Milan, or bury themselves deeper in Swabia, and with the onset of the Reformation leave the HRE.

Maybe.

hmmmmm.. that is interesting about the child. Funny thing about the way the Germans handled that sort of thing that the English world is not aware of: If the father married the mother, even AFTER the child was born..or even mostly full grown.

They were made legitimate retroactively.

So all it would take is for a family that had more then one flat out incestuous marriage IRL (the marriage of an uncle and niece springs to mind to keep Tuscany), to either bride the Pope for a divorce or arrange an "accident" for the wife to solve their inheritence problem.

Now if that child however was not a result of an "equal" coupling, they are well and truly boned. Morganatic births pretty much hose you for all time. Just look at the poor Lowensteins; they are the primagenture branch of the Wittelsbach family but are mearly Princes of the empire that can only inherit the traditional family lands if all other branches of the family are dead and all Beauharnais heirs are dead as well.

 

[unmerged(16159)]

hmmmmm.. that is interesting about the child. Funny thing about the way the Germans handled that sort of thing that the English world is not aware of: If the father married the mother, even AFTER the child was born..or even mostly full grown.

They were made legitimate retroactively.

So all it would take is for a family that had more then one flat out incestuous marriage IRL (the marriage of an uncle and niece springs to mind to keep Tuscany), to either bride the Pope for a divorce or arrange an "accident" for the wife to solve their inheritence problem.

Now if that child however was not a result of an "equal" coupling, they are well and truly boned. Morganatic births pretty much hose you for all time. Just look at the poor Lowensteins; they are the primagenture branch of the Wittelsbach family but are mearly Princes of the empire that can only inherit the traditional family lands if all other branches of the family are dead and all Beauharnais heirs are dead as well.

Actually it's a story to fit an idea by the original creator of the Swabian file. Perhaps you can run your historical plausibility ruler over this one:

The first version of Swabia has the Habsburg Karl suddenly decide to move the state to Milan, the place of his "birth" (rather than Spain IRL). It's an idea to give the Swabian player an option to bug out of the german sphere, and take on some Italian play, and was weritten when Swabia was intended as a minor. Since then we've tried to look at it as a major.

So when trying to finish and broaden the scope of Swabia, I had a look at the IRL rulers. While Kaigon had the Leopoldine line under Ernst, IRL Swabia (IRL Voerderoesterreich) was actually ruled by Frederick, and eventually his son Sigismund.

Rather than marry James Stuart's daughter (less likely now that Scotland is a powerful major and Swabia lives under Bavaria's shadow), I wrote him marrying Visconti's daughter Bianca. He is not the father of her only child.

And here's the point where Swabian destinies change a little... Sigismund now has the option of leaving Swabia to the Habsburgs in Styria under Maximillian, or his "adopted" son Phillip, who eventually is the one who gets the option to run the state capital down to Milan.

Pulp fiction at best, but something to justify abandoning one's Habsburg lineage... Check out the events here.

 

[MattyG]

an interesting take on it.

Let me propose a possible twist that occurred to me before logging in today:

The Crown of France is vacant. The Kingdom was once part of the Empire of Charlemagne. The Pope is going to want to keep the successor states of Gaul from clawing each others eyes out with the infidel just over the Pyrenees and they would want to keep the HRE from launching a series of expansionistic wars into France to reclaim any territory they may consider to be part of the old empire.....

So, the Pope expands the membership of the HRE to include the Gaulish successor states. This way he can get away with not elevating some of them to Kingdoms (leaves some leverage room), instead opting for elevation to elector or grandduke.

This would limit also Bavaria from Blobbing and make her actually have to compete for the throne as there are now more electors out there she no longer has an electoral lock.

It also seems to me that it is a plausible outcome to the situation.

That would fit well with thenopening storyline for Burgundy. The Choice of the Young Duke already has the Pope offering to make Burgundy a Kingdom in exchange for him renouncing any claims on France. He now ups the offer to include electoral votes, essentially asking/offering Burgundy to look eastwards to Germany, than westwards to France. Phillip, if he takes action_a becomes Phillip le Bon, interested in European peace and is a devout (if somewhat reformist) Catholic. Best to have a read of the file yourself.

Of course, if the ai or player picks action_b, that would really throw the pope and Germany for a loop ...

 

[MattyG]

well as long as we are clear that the reasoning is strictly a gamist one and not one based on probable historical outcomes or anything remotely resembling reality; I am reasonably cool with it.

But be aware that the design philosophy you are talking about is in itself self limiting as it is one that imposes artificial constraints upon the players and somewhat forces the game to be played out within as big a sandbox as you construct.

So in a manner of speaking you are by definition limiting the playability of the mod from its' inception as the players have to conform to the paths that you have laid out for them to a much greater degree then in other mods.

I cannot agree less.

First, I don't accept your personal views on what is, or is not, more probable in history. Tell us all what is the most probable outcome in the middleeast right now? Would you have said the same thing a few weeks ago before Sharon suddently left the stage and Hamas won an overwhelming victory? Maybe, but most people would not, I think. History is driven by people, their remarkable abilities and often inexplicable decisions, and few people believe something can happen until it does, but then often see it as inevitable and obvious in hindsight.

Second, any scenario is a scenario. Vanilla is a scenario based on real history. Every other mod is likewise a scenario with defined boundaries. They are all sandboxes we establish for people to play in. Or not, their choice.

Finally, Aberration - unlike most scenarios (especially vanilla-types) - is less constrained than others, and anyone who read the event files would see this. Spain has one path in Vanilla, the 'plausible' scenario, even in the AGCEEP version. But all the the events assume one course of action. Then go read Cordoba, Byzantium, caliphate, Savoy, Eire etc. Up to three possible storylines with monarchs and events to drive them. Hardly 'conforming to paths' when compared to most scenarios.

 

[Incompetent]

Finally, Aberration - unlike most scenarios (especially vanilla-types) - is less constrained than others, and anyone who read the event files would see this. Spain has one path in Vanilla, the 'plausible' scenario, even in the AGCEEP version. But all the the events assume one course of action. Then go read Cordoba, Byzantium, caliphate, Savoy, Eire etc. Up to three possible storylines with monarchs and events to drive them. Hardly 'conforming to paths' when compared to most scenarios.

Quoted for emphasis. Perhaps we need a thread on the matter.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

But I think that has been the goal from the begining, to create a rough MP playability, something lacking in vanilla EU2.

In some ways it's a post-rationalisation. Work out a good storyline, then fit events to ensure that the the story balances all the other stories out there. There has to be some artificial constraint, otherwise we'd all be creating major powers the size of France or Spain or England.



And it doesn't limit the playability, any more than Vanilla or AGCEEP for example, which really only have single story for each nation. Quite the opposite. We should be creating a storyline that challenges the player, and offers them different streams of choices. Most ABEII nations have 2-3 separate paths. With Bavaria we should be able to create, and justify historically, 2 good stories.

no, it doesn't necessarily limit the playability of the game, it may limit the enjoyability of it for some but it will still be enjoyable.

The observation that I was making is that the goal of making smallish nations in contravention of the historic impetus for each dynasty and nation to grow is a purposeful act. It is a choice made BY the designer and imposed upon the player, a sandbox so to speak.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

As plausible as some of the other things suggested. I like it, and I like the idea of the Pope intervening in secular affairs since generally in EU2, The Papal States are pretty quiet.

Does the Pope have the power to do this? Or are you suggesting a stronger pope? What is the motivation for these states in Gaul to join the HRE?






The other simple way is to start Bavaria with fewer Electorates.

in theory during the time period in question the Pope could give it a very good shot, and if need be could use the ultimate bit of leverage that he has and that is directly crowning the HEI without bother of election.

Constitutionally the HRE would have to accept that although it would royally tick them off...

as to the reason that the Gaulish states would accept it, that one would come down to prestige and survival. It would be extremely prestigious to be an elector and it was prestigious enough to be elected Emperor that a King of France busted his butt trying to get elected IRL...

The survival part is self explainatory, as the house of Savoy is already a part of the Empire and Burgandy is also they may as well get the goodies and keep the Germans from rolling across the Rhine looking for Gaulish lunch money.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Actually it's a story to fit an idea by the original creator of the Swabian file. Perhaps you can run your historical plausibility ruler over this one:

The first version of Swabia has the Habsburg Karl suddenly decide to move the state to Milan, the place of his "birth" (rather than Spain IRL). It's an idea to give the Swabian player an option to bug out of the german sphere, and take on some Italian play, and was weritten when Swabia was intended as a minor. Since then we've tried to look at it as a major.

So when trying to finish and broaden the scope of Swabia, I had a look at the IRL rulers. While Kaigon had the Leopoldine line under Ernst, IRL Swabia (IRL Voerderoesterreich) was actually ruled by Frederick, and eventually his son Sigismund.

Rather than marry James Stuart's daughter (less likely now that Scotland is a powerful major and Swabia lives under Bavaria's shadow), I wrote him marrying Visconti's daughter Bianca. He is not the father of her only child.

And here's the point where Swabian destinies change a little... Sigismund now has the option of leaving Swabia to the Habsburgs in Styria under Maximillian, or his "adopted" son Phillip, who eventually is the one who gets the option to run the state capital down to Milan.

Pulp fiction at best, but something to justify abandoning one's Habsburg lineage... Check out the events here.

I find your reasoning on the subject to be sound and well considered. With the house of Hapsburg less cohesive then IRL they really are a medium weight at best house.

I would hazard that Swabia really would remain a medium strength nation; either a very strong minor or a weak major depending upon how you look at it. The major portion of the Hapsburgs power was marriage, they married well and often and health care being what it was for the era won a lot in the shortened lifespan lotto.

Without that marriagability they don't got much to fall back on. Which brings up another sticking point that may be a problem:

If we stick with the RL births, deaths and people as much as possible (which seems prudent as it means waaaaaaaaaaay less work), the pragmatic sanction is going to be a real bear for Swabia as I don't think that they are going to have the relative political oomph to pull off the old double cross they did IRL.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

That would fit well with thenopening storyline for Burgundy. The Choice of the Young Duke already has the Pope offering to make Burgundy a Kingdom in exchange for him renouncing any claims on France. He now ups the offer to include electoral votes, essentially asking/offering Burgundy to look eastwards to Germany, than westwards to France. Phillip, if he takes action_a becomes Phillip le Bon, interested in European peace and is a devout (if somewhat reformist) Catholic. Best to have a read of the file yourself.

Of course, if the ai or player picks action_b, that would really throw the pope and Germany for a loop ...

and "B" would lead to some punishment down the road... Gaul is fractured and if Burgandy goes for France it is going to weaken all the successor states enough that Germany is going to look at them as free money just laying around waiting to be claimed.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

I cannot agree less.

First, I don't accept your personal views on what is, or is not, more probable in history. Tell us all what is the most probable outcome in the middleeast right now? Would you have said the same thing a few weeks ago before Sharon suddently left the stage and Hamas won an overwhelming victory? Maybe, but most people would not, I think. History is driven by people, their remarkable abilities and often inexplicable decisions, and few people believe something can happen until it does, but then often see it as inevitable and obvious in hindsight.

Second, any scenario is a scenario. Vanilla is a scenario based on real history. Every other mod is likewise a scenario with defined boundaries. They are all sandboxes we establish for people to play in. Or not, their choice.

Finally, Aberration - unlike most scenarios (especially vanilla-types) - is less constrained than others, and anyone who read the event files would see this. Spain has one path in Vanilla, the 'plausible' scenario, even in the AGCEEP version. But all the the events assume one course of action. Then go read Cordoba, Byzantium, caliphate, Savoy, Eire etc. Up to three possible storylines with monarchs and events to drive them. Hardly 'conforming to paths' when compared to most scenarios.

no need to get so defensive. My observation was based upon your design philosophy of wanting a MP scenario that reduces super state blobs. If that is not a constrained sandbox then I don't know what is! However many alternate monarch files you have or alternate paths you give to the various nations you still are by definition designing the scenario to conform to your goal of no super state blobs.

 

[unmerged(31994)]

If the war starts, and that should NOT be a given (there should be some revolts definitely and those revolts should increase if the HEI is a complete pontz about things), it would be a bit of civil war, religious war, and outside parties attempting to weaken a rival. Imagine as the Sultan and Byzantine emperor both try to finance and encourage strife...

Ooooh oh very nice indeed!

Sorry I joined in late, but I was never intrested in Germania - but something told me to read a bit from this intresting discussion.

Has anybody here heard of the "Jund el-Alemand" - meaning well, Soldiers of Germany.This is sort like a Muslim raiding party but from Germanic origin.What happened was, the Muslim Andalusians and Berbers of Africa usually raided southern Frace greatly, and captured many slaves.They also had deals with the Italian city states to bring in German slaves (whom they considered strong and with good build).The Caliph al-Hakam began this tradition in 892 whereby he dispatched groups of Islamized Raiding parties into France and then into Germania led by Sufi warriors and monks.They returned with alot of loot and usually caused havoc in disrupting Germania's western borders.

So when this new state arises, the Sultan(tacky title for an Andalusian monarch, eh?they were usually called Kings{even in arabic! Maliks} or Caliphs)
Could simply send not only raiding parties, but crazed French Protestant monks spreading the message of Luther/Zwingli/or whatever in Western Germania.

Oooh this will be shiny event!

"Crazed Frogs in Germania!"

 

[MattyG]

no need to get so defensive. My observation was based upon your design philosophy of wanting a MP scenario that reduces super state blobs. If that is not a constrained sandbox then I don't know what is! However many alternate monarch files you have or alternate paths you give to the various nations you still are by definition designing the scenario to conform to your goal of no super state blobs.

Relax.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

Relax.

cool

 

[MattyG]

Ooooh oh very nice indeed!

Sorry I joined in late, but I was never intrested in Germania - but something told me to read a bit from this intresting discussion.

Has anybody here heard of the "Jund el-Alemand" - meaning well, Soldiers of Germany.This is sort like a Muslim raiding party but from Germanic origin.What happened was, the Muslim Andalusians and Berbers of Africa usually raided southern Frace greatly, and captured many slaves.They also had deals with the Italian city states to bring in German slaves (whom they considered strong and with good build).The Caliph al-Hakam began this tradition in 892 whereby he dispatched groups of Islamized Raiding parties into France and then into Germania led by Sufi warriors and monks.They returned with alot of loot and usually caused havoc in disrupting Germania's western borders.

So when this new state arises, the Sultan(tacky title for an Andalusian monarch, eh?they were usually called Kings{even in arabic! Maliks} or Caliphs)
Could simply send not only raiding parties, but crazed French Protestant monks spreading the message of Luther/Zwingli/or whatever in Western Germania.

Oooh this will be shiny event!

"Crazed Frogs in Germania!"

Calipah, I think you are finally losing it ....

Although, the history lesson was great.

Do you want to change Cordoban references from Sultan to King or Malik?

 

[unmerged(31994)]

Yes - I have never actually heard the term "Sultan" being muttered in Muslim Spain.Usually, you had Emirs, Kings and Caliphs.That was it.Sultan was more used in the east (even North Africa prefered Kings).