Facelifting France: Map, mechanics and more

[Isildur9526]

Note: This is a work in progress.

Hello all, and welcome!

The purpose of this thread is to compile my own suggestions for how to improve France (a nation currently portrayed anachronistically as being a homogeneous blob) in the hope that some of these ideas may find their way into the game.

To start, I am going to say that this is in no way a buff or a nerf to France, but rather an overhaul. The main challenge I have faced in compiling these suggestions, and the biggest question for whoever at Paradox reads this to consider: How do we make France more interesting, immersive and historically accurate, but also bring plenty of challenges at the same time?

With that question in mind, I’ll go through a comprehensive list of the changes that I am proposing in posts throughout this thread, complete with my reasoning for each change.

NB: Everything I post in this thread may be subject to change when necessary.

Table of contents.
Part I.1: The Map.
Part I.2: Map Miscellanea.
Part II: France's Subjects.
Part III: Introducing the Appanage.

Forthcoming Parts.
Part IV: Royal Authority.
Part V: Occitania.

 

[Metroidkirby]

You don't said it in your post, but just to be clear Armagnac, Foix and Albret weren't appanages; and on the other hand Burgundy and Provence were.

 

[BalticM]

So I can't really be sure if those bailliages are historical.

They are. But divisions are more true for 17-18th centuries rather than 15-16th ones. Obviously bailliagies were not permanent thing and changed boundaries, names and composition over time. Some provinces like Dauphine, Provence or Champagne had far more bailliages than map shows, so obviously map is interpretation and simplification of complex system. But as I've said it's just best "summary" I've found for France.

Part II is amazing, you're doing fantastic work!
I think this is exactly what France is missing the most.
But I need to ask, what do you think about Limoges & Perigord provinces? Whom should they belong to in 1444?
Or Angouleme?
Or Metz?
There are some more potential tags
And Auvergne not being part of Bourbon is brave interpretation. As much as I remember my study, for Auvergne in year 1444 I could give only Turenne province if such is created, because "County of Auvergne" had only small parts of land in Auvergne with most of lands belonging to "Duchy of Auvergne" ruled by Bourbons. Sure, I might be wrong on this.

Here are some more maps for dates close to 1444:

 

[Metroidkirby]

But I need to ask, what do you think about Limoges & Perigord provinces? Whom should they belong to in 1444?
Or Angouleme?
Or Metz?

I can list the noble in charge of those areas if it can help:
Limoges and Périgord: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_II,_Count_of_Penthièvre
Angoulême: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_Count_of_Angoulême
Metz (should be a republic): https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/République_messine (can't find it in english)

And Auvergne not being part of Bourbon is brave interpretation.

Indeed, Auvergne and Bourbon were both ruled by a Bourbon in 1444:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I,_Duke_of_Bourbon

 

[Isildur9526]

Indeed, Auvergne and Bourbon were both ruled by a Bourbon in 1444:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I,_Duke_of_Bourbon

Yes, which is why I did mention that if Auvergne were to be added, it would represent the COUNTY, which was ruled by separate rulers to the Bourbons. The DUCHY was ruled by the Bourbons. So there is maybe a case for including Auvergne but it's debatable.

 

[BalticM]

Limoges and Périgord: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_II,_Count_of_Penthièvre

The more interesting part is if House of Chatillon can have its own tag as well? And later (1481 historically) be inherited by House Albret?
In year 1444 these provinces were neither Crown lands neither held by its princes, so France tag is obviously wrong there. France shouldn't have even claim there. Right?

And one more thing why Orleans tag is a bit complicated.
Ruler of Orleans in year 1444 would be Charles I, but his son Louis II is king of France since 1498. How that would be pictured in game? I hope Isildur the Mag is bringing nice ideas about "Appanage subjects" as France definitely needs some specific mechanics on this if those new tags are about to be created.

 

[Metroidkirby]

Yes, which is why I did mention that if Auvergne were to be added, it would represent the COUNTY, which was ruled by separate rulers to the Bourbons. The DUCHY was ruled by the Bourbons. So there is maybe a case for including Auvergne but it's debatable.

It's a bit tedious as the county is an appanage of the duchy, the count is the younger brother of the duke:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_I,_Count_of_Montpensier

It's more or less a question of what you want to do with appanages. I think it's harder to make a choice on this question, especially because subject's subjects are not really well implemented ingame.

The more interesting part is if House of Chatillon can have its own tag as well? And later (1481 historically) be inherited by House Albret?

It could be a new tag, and it could fall under PU or total integration of another tag, like Albret, by game mechanism, or by event (or even by mission) everything is possible.

In year 1444 these provinces were neither Crown lands neither held by its princes, so France tag is obviously wrong there. France shouldn't have even claim there. Right?

I think the easiest choice is: crown lands = french core; loyal vassal = vassal of France; disloyal vassal = independant dukedom; appanage = appanage. We fell on the same question: How to implement appanages?

 

[Isildur9526]

The more interesting part is if House of Chatillon can have its own tag as well? And later (1481 historically) be inherited by House Albret?
In year 1444 these provinces were neither Crown lands neither held by its princes, so France tag is obviously wrong there. France shouldn't have even claim there. Right?

And one more thing why Orleans tag is a bit complicated.
Ruler of Orleans in year 1444 would be Charles I, but his son Louis II is king of France since 1498. How that would be pictured in game? I hope Isildur the Mag is bringing nice ideas about "Appanage subjects" as France definitely needs some specific mechanics on this if those new tags are about to be created.

A good case has been made for adding a tag for the house of Chatillon. However they were not just counts of Perigord but also counts of Penthievre all the way up in Brittany in 1444, and I doubt the EU4 team are willing to represent that. It would be impossible to add every single tag that existed at the time, but I guess I could make a few more paragraphs at the end of Part II detailing additional tags that could possibly be included as well, as I had some ideas of my own.

Also, Orleans would simply pass into the French crown lands when Louis comes to the French throne as Louis XIII in the history files.

An interesting thing I found was that the duke of Orleans actually had a claim to Asti (in EU4 province of Montferrat) via the duke Charles II's mother Valentina Visconti.

 

[Isildur9526]

You don't said it in your post, but just to be clear Armagnac, Foix and Albret weren't appanages; and on the other hand Burgundy and Provence were.

'Appanage' is just a potential name for the new subject type, I know the definition doesn't encompass every one of the tags being added. Alas, the name isn't really that important, I could have chosen to name it 'Fief'.

 

[BalticM]

I think the easiest choice is: crown lands = french core; loyal vassal = vassal of France; disloyal vassal = independant dukedom; appanage = appanage. We fell on the same question: How to implement appanages?

But who are these loyal vassals? None were that loyal.. The more I think the more it seems that all potential new tags should start as independent and not as vassal of France.

And appanage subjects of France shouldn't be vassals, but more like allies and competitors with right to inherit throne if French ruling line dies out. Right to inherit throne to be lost if appanage subject becomes disloyal (breaks alliance?), or the more disloyal appanage subject is - the further in inheritance line it stands. Or well, I'm out of ideas what to do with those appanage subjects.

Potential "appanage" subjects of France:
Orleans - very loyal
Alencon - very loyal (occupied by England in 1444)
Anjou - loyal
Angouleme - loyal
Bourbon-Vendome - loyal (probably won't be presented in game though it is this Bourbon line which inherited France)
Bourbon - disloyal
Burgundy - very disloyal

Am I correct on "loyalties"?

 

[Metroidkirby]

And appanage subjects of France shouldn't be vassals, but more like allies and competitors with right to inherit throne if French ruling line dies out. Right to inherit throne to be lost if appanage subject becomes disloyal (breaks alliance?), or the more disloyal appanage subject is - the further in inheritance line it stands. Or well, I'm out of ideas what to do with those appanage subjects.

Appanages were under simple rules, so it's not that hard to see what it could be. A territory given to a male of the ruling house. This territory is recovered when the sub-line ruling the appanage do not produce a male heir (end of the sub-line) OR when the sub-line became the main line (like Louis XII).
But it poses some difficulties for EUIV:
How is choosen the sub-line inheriting the kingdom? There are no dynastic trees so something like the one with most prestige could do the thing (not accurate, but the newest is not necessarily the nearest of the reigning king).
How to manage the inheritence gameover in ironman? Now the game prevents player to be inherited on monarch death, so probably writing the inheritence event with the variable on who is the player could do the thing (if player is France, takes inherited appanage's leader; if player is appanage, inherits France and change tag to FRA).

I don't think an appanage really need the loyalty system, as an appanage don't really need to be under strict control from the king. The Valois-Anjou and the Valois-Bourgogne did plenty enough by themselves for exemple.
I think adding a few more rules like "France and appanages can't declare war on each-other", "France is called as co-belligerant when war is declared on appanage", "appanages can't be called in french aggressive wars", "appanages can't call France in their offensive wars" and "appanages are called as allies in french defensive wars (appanages defending their future legacy, and gaining prestige through the war)" could do the thing.

It really should be something between the subject and the ally, but it's hard to draw the line. Perhaps adding the possibility for an appanage to loose this status if it has at least 50% of France developement ? (to reflect Burgundy's attitude) This decision should have strenghts and weaknesses (which could be determined on par with the discussion on "how to redesign the Burgundian Inheritence?").

 

[Funlover]

I agree with most of the map changes for France but Albret and Vermadois, but i love the idea of Foix,Toulon and Blois being added as they where quite important places in French history.

 

[BalticM]

How is choosen the sub-line inheriting the kingdom? There are no dynastic trees so something like the one with most prestige could do the thing (not accurate, but the newest is not necessarily the nearest of the reigning king).

What was inheritance order or what were the real rules about this in real history? Or no rules? I don't think Orleans were 1st in line, it's just that most of others also died out. Then Angouleme is subdynasty of Orleans. And Bourbons were last in line for sure.

 

[Isildur9526]

Bourbon - disloyal

Bourbon = disloyal? I thought they were very much the opposite. They espoused the Valois cause during the HYW the entire time.

 

[Isildur9526]

But it poses some difficulties for EUIV:
How is choosen the sub-line inheriting the kingdom? There are no dynastic trees so something like the one with most prestige could do the thing (not accurate, but the newest is not necessarily the nearest of the reigning king).
How to manage the inheritence gameover in ironman? Now the game prevents player to be inherited on monarch death, so probably writing the inheritence event with the variable on who is the player could do the thing (if player is France, takes inherited appanage's leader; if player is appanage, inherits France and change tag to FRA).

These are some good suggestions, at the moment I don't have a concrete idea on how appanage dynasty would rise to the French throne. But it could be that the appanage with the highest of a mix of factors e.g prestige, diplomatic reputation, could inherit the French throne if the existing French line were to be extinguished.

And managing the game over - well France would probably inherit the appanage and take their leader if they are the nearest relative to France's line, as happened with Orleans in 1497. But then again there's the problem of EU4 not representing blood relatives.
There's already a decision to form France in game, so the appanage player could inherit France and then choose to form it if they wanted to by taking the decision, but of course they'd have to fulfil its requirements (owning most of France north of Occitania).

I don't think an appanage really need the loyalty system, as an appanage don't really need to be under strict control from the king. The Valois-Anjou and the Valois-Bourgogne did plenty enough by themselves for exemple.
I think adding a few more rules like "France and appanages can't declare war on each-other", "France is called as co-belligerant when war is declared on appanage", "appanages can't be called in french aggressive wars", "appanages can't call France in their offensive wars" and "appanages are called as allies in french defensive wars (appanages defending their future legacy, and gaining prestige through the war)" could do the thing.

It really should be something between the subject and the ally, but it's hard to draw the line. Perhaps adding the possibility for an appanage to loose this status if it has at least 50% of France developement ? (to reflect Burgundy's attitude) This decision should have strenghts and weaknesses (which could be determined on par with the discussion on "how to redesign the Burgundian Inheritence?").

The rules you've come up with all sound fine to me. Appanages should function somewhat like tributaries, being able to declare independence war against France when they so choose, and also being able to declare war on other Appanages, however France should be able to either end the war between both sides or favour one side over the other (event). They wouldn't be able to directly get involved in those wars though. And it would be an obligation for appanage to come to the defence of France if they were attacked.

Appanages should be able to lose their subject status if they grow more powerful than France, like Burgundy did. Controlling 50-75% of France's development would probably work nicely. As I'll discuss in Part III there will be many incentives to get rid of your appanage status, whether by possibly getting your dynasty on French throne or otherwise.

 

[Metz]

Foix and Toulon would certainly be worthwhile additions. Carcassonne would split up Toulouse nicely. Not sure about Albret for the reasons Mingmung stated above.

I'm quite happy with the current map of Northern France, I'm not sure that it needs more provinces.

Got to represent France as the most populated place in Western Europe. It would counteract a buffed up Austria and an Iberia and Netherlands/Belgium that require more provinces. France was the major player on the continent during the whole of the game's timeframe.

 

[Metz]

France centralized its heartland very slowly. This allowed for provincial cultures to retain and reinforce their identity. Italy's took much longer which is why regional pride is comparatively stronger in Italy than in France.

The coercion-extraction model of centralization used by France and Prussia during the Early Modern Period should find a way to be represented in game. You create a strong force to bring subjects into the fold, in other words to centralize. By centralizing, you extract more wealth to create an even larger force to centralize your authority even more. Eventually as the major powers in Europe become highly centralized, this era becomes known as the Age of Absolutism. How do you supplant local and provincial lords and maintain and run a tight ship? By the creation of a bureaucracy loyal to the crown. This renders provincial lords as technically useless but symbolically purposeful.

Why should provincial lords lend France their "personal" armies? What is their self-interest if after all, their land is their personal territory?

This is where we could see the autonomy mechanic improved.

If you are a France with vassals and are at war, to request military assistance from your vassals you can grant "Vassal Autonomy".

0% Vassal Autonomy = annexation

25% Vassal Autonomy = full alliance

50% Vassal Autonomy = defensive alliance

75% Vassal Autonomy = military access

100% Vassal Autonomy = sovereignty

How do you decrease a subjects autonomy? By coercion, in other words, by being substantially stronger than them and wealthier than them. If you are strong then they will fear going against you. If you are wealthy then they know you can pay for a force that will keep them in line. If they are stronger than you then why should they obey you? If you are wealthier than them then you know you can pay your fight for sovereignty. Another way would be to lend them money and depend on you for their economy to stay afloat. This would be more useful for poorer vassals. You could also have diplomatic options where you bribe minor nobles to pressure/convince their lord to join you for whatever reason.

In game terms, if France wants to get more soldiers from its vassal to fend off England or kick them out of the continent then they need to somehow compensate their vassals. What do vassals want the most? To increase their power. It's a power play mindset. The catch is if they lose, then they will be weaker in the eyes of their vassals. Alternatively, if they win with minimum help, they will become much stronger than their vassals and can easily pressure them into being more dependent until the point of total incorporation. Hence, coercion-extraction. So sure, France could vassal-swarm England at the start if they so wish to, but then for the next war, France is without that vassal swarm and Burgundy, Austria, or some other power would have an easier time against them.

Having this would be more realistic than have a 50 year timer of annexation for vassals.

 

[Metroidkirby]

What was inheritance order or what were the real rules about this in real history? Or no rules? I don't think Orleans were 1st in line, it's just that most of others also died out. Then Angouleme is subdynasty of Orleans. And Bourbons were last in line for sure.

Tho order of who can inherit the crown was following the crown rule for selection of the new king: the nearest male heir to a french king by male line.

If we take the case of Louis XII (heir of Charles VIII), he wasn't the soon of Charles VIII, who did not have children (the were all dead). So why was Louis XII choosen as the new king ? He was the great grand son of king Charles V, who had as heir Charles VI, and another soon, Louis, which get the appanage of Orléans. This appanage was the last created (Burgundy then Anjou were created by Jean II, so they were farther, despite beiing more prestigious/powerfull). As the house of Bourbon is an ancient appanage (from the central middle ages) it inherited France later.

There's already a decision to form France in game, so the appanage player could inherit France and then choose to form it if they wanted to by taking the decision, but of course they'd have to fulfil its requirements (owning most of France north of Occitania).

I don't think this is really a good way to represent the thing. The one inheriting France inherits France because he's the heir, not someone claiming the legacy of an ancient country or creating a new country. Even weirder, if France loose one of its required provinces (exemple: France do not own Maine, because it's still peace with England) then you do not have France anymore, despite having an incontestable king.
I'll add another difficulty that I didn't though of yesterday: what happened if both countries are led by a player? Well I guess one is game-over, but which one? In EUIV you don't play as a dynasty or a character (that's CKII), you play as a country, so it should probably be France inheriting the appanage the reflect things?
Other thing: On inheritence, orders lost their provinces, if an appanage would inherit France, then you remove all those pesky nobles in southern France without having to deal with angry nobles. Same thing on the economy, if France is in debt, its debt shouldn't be disappearing just because a sub-line inherited the crown. And again, same thing on Religion, think of Henri IV, who abandoned is reformed faith to rule catholic France.
I think I can add some more exemples, like corruption, or ideas groups, which would get switched to much.

Appanages should function somewhat like tributaries, being able to declare independence war against France when they so choose

I don't think it's needed. Anjou and Burgundy didn't declare an independance war and were still de facto independant. And if they get Liberty Desire rather than Legitimacy, we can't set Legitimacy as a criteria to choose which appanage will inherit France on a missing heir. I also think that they can't PU another duchy/kingdom if they have Liberty Desire rather than Legitimacy (but I might be wrong, as I never try to PU another country while beiing a subject).

This is where we could see the autonomy mechanic improved.

If you are a France with vassals and are at war, to request military assistance from your vassals you can grant "Vassal Autonomy".

This seems good for vassal-play, but it feels much more like a vassal overhaul applicable to all countries, rather than something specific to France.

 

[Yevardian]

Honestly, I don't think France needs any more provinces. At all. Balkans is ugly AF and has room for lots more detail, tags and cultures, whilst this feels like adding provinces for the same odd adding provinces. Inner France is not an area that sees much fighting or attention most games. It's rich, inland, flat, happy and well protected.

Some vassals might make early game more interesting without making France even more OP though.

 

[Mingmung]

Honestly, I don't think France needs any more provinces. At all. Balkans is ugly AF and has room for lots more detail, tags and cultures, whilst this feels like adding provinces for the same odd adding provinces. Inner France is not an area that sees much fighting or attention most games. It's rich, inland, flat, happy and well protected.

Some vassals might make early game more interesting without making France even more OP though.

The devs want to add some provinces to the south, that's it. More than fair, even. The north just needs a doublecheck.

I made a huge Balkan thread, myself. You've probably seen it. There are other suggestions out there, too. So, no worries.

 

[JSparks101]

Wait, Appanages are holdings of the heir of a state. The Principality of Wales was an English Appanage, the Dauphinate was an Appanage of France. the Count of Dunois was an Appanage of Orleans I believe. What the subject type should be called is "Fief", though I believe both Appanage and Fief should be added.