• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Thank you Spruce. Great stuff you're finding there. :cool:
 
MrT said:
Thank you Spruce. Great stuff you're finding there. :cool:

Mr. T, I've adjusted an earlier post about the 1337 scenario (I made an error),

notice that this scenario start date is a bit nasty (reason why, check the adjusted post), but it has huge impact on the Burgundian story - and the shift from French vassal to independent and eventually to the Burgundian house. Everybody knows that the Burgundian house was in fact the power of Flanders combined with the English-Flemish good relationships (trade, industry) combined with a claim on the French crown during the first years. To me it's the supreme top of feudalism. On one side you have the French king who lost Flanders for a while because England is the coming power and the outsider is the Burgundian house that's playing a game in between with during the first years a claim to the French crown. The first Burgundian dukes spend more time in Paris then in Brussels ... sometimes they had to run when the ground beneath their feet became to hot, :)

I'm presuming the Burgundian house should be included - for the sake of EU2 (alone the shield = it's the most beautiful shield in the world, imho ;) ,

the issue is that Louis II of Maele (Louis I's son, who's born already in 1337) gets a daugther that marries 2 Burgundian dukes who share the ambition to get elected king of France,

so it seems Louis II is the turning point, he get's back into Flanders and his daughter forges an alliance with the Burgundian Duke (which wants the French king). Also Louis II makes his peaces with the English, and the long war between France and England begins to ignite,

the problem is that Margaretha isn't married in 1337. Does this means a no-go for the Burgundy house? It would be a pitty,

perhaps Margaretha is hardcoded or there might be an event where the daugther of Loiuis marries the Burgundian duke,

;) :confused:
 
Spruce: I've been asked by one of the scenario team betas to pass along the following...

Hi Spruce, thanks for your interest in CK Low Countries set up. I was one of the betas first involved in naming Low Countries provinces and allocating them under the right titles. The current situation is that province names are fixed, their allocation however of course can change and is still under development in the beta.

First I must say you are right about Gent belonging to Flanders in the 1066 scenario. The fact that it isn’t at the moment is because Flanders was a very difficult case during the CK development. First of all Flanders as you know historically was a county, but still had vassals. In CK this isn’t possible a count cannot have vassals. Therefore Flanders is made a duchy to enable it to have its vassals and thus to reflect its historic power and importance in CK.

Second Flanders is one of the VERY few areas where provinces are allowed to be named after cities. The reason for this is that Flanders was one single county, but the provinces on the map in the region we betas were confronted with were smaller, furthermore the WHOLE map was already named after cities. For Flanders we could not found suitable names except those of the cities. So all three provinces kept their name as city, while in other regions province names were changed.

During extensive character research I came to learn a bit more about the region. Then the idea came up to let the “province” Gent resemble the county of Aalst (Alost). Although indeed the city Gent lied a few kilometres outside Aalst, we thought that considering it Aalst, which belonged to the HRE in 1066, would better resemble the geographic make up of the region in 1066.

I realize that this is not an ideal situation, but since we couldn’t change the name from Gent to Aalst we had to make a choice. It was either allocating Gent historically correct to Flanders and messing up the geographic make up of the region in 1066 or making sure that the geographic make up of the region in 1066 was correct, but falsely place Gent in the HRE. We chose for the latter, meaning that Gent, representing Aalst, will belong to the HRE in the 1066 scenario and to Flanders in the 1167 and 1337 scenarios (like the city Gent). I can very well understand if you and/or others will choose differently by means of a mod.

So what can you mean to the beta? Well you can give your view on what I just described. Furthermore additional low countries characters may be needed for the 1167 and 1337 scenario (think 1066 is reasonably complete in our working beta draft) and as already pointed out by MrT, the scenario set up is still under development and some reorganization of the whole feudal allocation of provinces may yet be made.

All this makes it rather complicated. You can start proposing stuff and perhaps have an influence on decisions made in the beta. On the other hand you don’t have the game yet and you might be doing stuff we already have done or are planning to do. I guess it is up to you to decide. Well thanks again for your interest and we will see if we can use your links for our development.

P.S. You can view this as a thank you from the betas for your very helpful and constructive approach. Of course the above info is provided by a beta and thus can not be regarded as official Paradox info or be certain to appear in the DEM1.01.

Cheers.
 
Spruce,

This is simply amazing :eek:

Great job! Keep it up!

(Die pint van Mr.T is zeker verdiend... :D )
 
Murmurandus said:
Spruce,

This is simply amazing :eek:

Great job! Keep it up!

(Die pint van Mr.T is zeker verdiend... :D )

ik ga voor ne bak of een vat ;)

thanks,

but I'm also trying to open it to other low countries like holland and Friesland, which is diffult tough, need some screenies from Mork, ;) :)
 
as MrT requested - please note that this a resume - the data can be found in the above mentioned links and in my home library (not online off course)

But first a remark = I've much respect for Paradox and their beta crew, but some things should perhaps be changed (a bit ahistorical). Furthermore I'm trying to keep this positive - but history should be respected as much as possible.

20 december 1066 =

Flanders should exist - not the counties of Gent and Bruges - Gent AND Aalst were also be part of Flanders. Aalst or Alost has been part of Flanders from 1047 on - it was know of county of Ename (or also Imperial Flanders, part of the HRE) and was already conquered and the deal was settled with the count of Hainaut.

The demesne of Flanders should be = Bruges, Ypren, Gent (county of Ename 1047 vanquished), Ypren and Artois (vanquished 931). Guines, Zeeland, Hainaut Boulogne should be vassals. Zeeland became a Flemish vassal (approved by HRE emperor) in 1012. Baldwin Vs son Baldwin VI was count of Hainaut and rightfull heir to his Father Baldwin V.

So in CK game terms, Flanders should be a Duchy in 1066 with 4 vassals (Guines, Boulogn, Hainaut and Artois), now that's somewhat different ...

king Baldwin V ruled Flanders on 20 dec 1066, he was born in 1012 (exact date not known) and died on 1 september 1067. He was married to Adela (daughter of the French king Robbert (or Robrecht) II - no info yet on birth date) and had at least 3 children. His oldest son was Baldwin VI (born in 1039 - married to Richildis of Hainaut, having a son Arnulf III - birt data unknown) and was granted all titles, except Zeeland and Gent (county of Ename) which went to the youngest son Robrecht the Frisian. So I suspect him to have 2 son (they speak about the oldest and the youngest inheriting titles). Baldwin V also had a daughter = Mathilde, she was married in 1053 to Duke William I of Normandy.

about traits = I won't allocate them myself - i leave this up to the beta team. Baldwin V was a true statesman and very energetic and even was regent of France in 1060. I don't find information that he was suffering from a disease - so he was in acceptable health. Adela was very much involved in the church and very godsthrusting, she helped to found many monastaries and abbeyes). Baldwin VI was a rebel when he was young but altogether he seemed to be a promising count, unfortunately he was slain by his uncle Robrecht the Frisian in 1070 (kinslayer).

in historical works, the Flemish counts were at their strongest in the time period of 1030-1070. So it would be a pitty not to have them in the game.

Next step is that I'll try to find more info on children, wife etc for the Flemish scenario of 1066.

any feedback would be much aprreciated because it's a time consuming job, again respect to game dev's and betas :)

p.s. = specially to beta's and game dev's = the county of Ename (Gent on the CK map) is a peculiar one. It seems it was a vassal to Flanders or either part of their demesne. When I look at the game map, it seems that Ename is even more powerful then Bruges. This is wrong because the county of Ename was a midget. I would suggest to change the scope to the city Gent with the surroundings part of the HRE. The question remains wether this was a demesne or a vassal. If it's a vassal (like you guys intended to), it should have much less income and Bruges should be much stronger (the city of Gent alone was bigger then Paris in 1100 - yes, that's also true ;) ).

So either you guys choose "Gent" to be the county of Ename, but then the shield is wrong and the province stats are wrong - and it should be a vassal to Flanders and not a demesne. Or you choose Gent to be the city of Gent with its surroundings, being "part" of the HRE, but still a demesne of Flanders with the right CK 1.01 province stats,

I hope this is still clear - but the background is a bit complicated - I know, :D
 
Last edited:
I'm glad to inform you the Flemish COA in 1066 should be the old coat of arms of Flanders - which is correct - and not the lion,

repeating some links =

http://www.ngw.nl/int/bel/prov/westvlaa.htm
so the western half of the shield of West Vlaanderen,

http://membres.lycos.fr/heratlas/flandres/chronicf.htm
or in the above link - but the shield is not totally correct (the center part is fubar),

I've found a picture of Baldwin V (in a book) - count of Flanders (Baldwin of Lille) wearing the old coat of arms and his shield also had the old coat of arms,. The picture was made in his function as regent of France 1060).
don't use the Lion in 1066 - can this shield still be added? :confused:

I've found a picture of Baldwin V - count of Flanders (Baldwin of Lille) wearing the old coat of arms and his shield also had the old coat of arms,. The picture was made in his function as regent of France 1060).

the Lion comes in the 12'th century,
 
Spruce said:
I'm glad to inform you the Flemish COA in 1066 should be the old coat of arms of Flanders - which is correct - and not the lion,

repeating some links =

http://www.ngw.nl/int/bel/prov/westvlaa.htm
so the western half of the shield of West Vlaanderen,

http://membres.lycos.fr/heratlas/flandres/chronicf.htm
or in the above link - but the shield is not totally correct (the center part is fubar),

I've found a picture of Baldwin V (in a book) - count of Flanders (Baldwin of Lille) wearing the old coat of arms and his shield also had the old coat of arms,. The picture was made in his function as regent of France 1060).
don't use the Lion in 1066 - can this shield still be added? :confused:

I've found a picture of Baldwin V - count of Flanders (Baldwin of Lille) wearing the old coat of arms and his shield also had the old coat of arms,. The picture was made in his function as regent of France 1060).

the Lion comes in the 12'th century,

As far as I know, we can't change CoAs for individual states mid-game. If you start a 1066 game with the old CoA, you'll be stuck with it the whole game.

So for any given state, you can only have a single CoA for the entire game. So the best one to use is the one most associated with the state for the longest amount of the game period. For Flanders, this would of course be the well-known lion CoA...

Oh, and to answer your original worry - Boudewijn of Flanders is in the 1066 scenario, and is quite a powerful ruler owning several counties. It's just that in the 1.00 version (which you saw screenies for and what started your concern), he was mistakenly not given the title of "Duke of Flanders" and is instead just "Count of Gent, Brugge" etc...
 
MrT said:
Spruce: I've been asked by one of the scenario team betas to pass along the following...

the link to Aalst contains some wrong information - or at least torn out of its time frame. Sorry to say so, ;) :D

on the other hand I understand your opinion on the matter (see the first page of this thread),

the city of Aalst was part of the county of Ename and was put under Flemish rule as from 1033-1034 when the Emperial (HRE) castle of Ename was destroyed by Baldwin IV of Flanders when he invaded.

Later on there was a historical settlement between Hainaut and Flanders about the county of Ename and Ename and the region of Aalst went to Flanders (1042),

http://home.tiscali.be/sohier-ieper/het_westkwartier.htm
sorry, link is in dutch, but it is clearly mentioned and I've got it double checked by other sources,

I know Aalst wasn't always under Flemish control - but at least there seems to be a flaw with the province stats of Aalst and Bruges. Bruges or Burgge was even bigger then Paris in 1066 and in the 1066 the county of Aalst is more powerful then Brugge ? :confused:

so perhaps a tweak in the stats of both provinces should do the trick, but still then there's an issue with the COA of Gent representing Aalst,
:)
 
Last edited:
Demetrios said:
As far as I know, we can't change CoAs for individual states mid-game. If you start a 1066 game with the old CoA, you'll be stuck with it the whole game.

So for any given state, you can only have a single CoA for the entire game. So the best one to use is the one most associated with the state for the longest amount of the game period. For Flanders, this would of course be the well-known lion CoA...

Oh, and to answer your original worry - Boudewijn of Flanders is in the 1066 scenario, and is quite a powerful ruler owning several counties. It's just that in the 1.00 version (which you saw screenies for and what started your concern), he was mistakenly not given the title of "Duke of Flanders" and is instead just "Count of Gent, Brugge" etc...

Demetrios,

by the way, I installed 1.01 when I got CK,

thanks for reading my info - that's appreciated - I'm respecting you guys much more know, ;) :)

I also think it's best to go for the lion when there's only one COA possible...

However I've posted other things that should be looked at. Gent (or Aalst or Ename) should definately be under Flanders control, either demesne or a vassal.

I've also found that the Flemish count Diederik from the Elzas made a demesne from Aalst (the cold county of Ename) in the 12'th century,

So to me it's clear now =

there has been a choice to view Gent as "Aalst" but in that case you are stuck with the COA of Gent and the city stats are not good (see above post), in that case the Gent province is overpowered and Brugge is underpowered, and still the question remains about the COA, :confused: :eek:o
 
Last edited:
And now that we have a whole scenarios and modifications forum I'd like to usher this excellent work over there so people can see what sort of information will be invaluable to the beta team in helping us to further improve the game's historical accuracy. :cool:
 
Spruce said:
the link to Aalst contains some wrong information - or at least torn out of its time frame. Sorry to say so, ;) :D

on the other hand I understand your opinion on the matter (see the first page of this thread),

the city of Aalst was part of the county of Ename and was put under Flemish rule as from 1033-1034 when the Emperial (HRE) castle of Ename was destroyed by Baldwin IV of Flanders when he invaded.

Later on there was a historical settlement between Hainaut and Flanders about the county of Ename and Ename and the region of Aalst went to Flanders (1042),

http://home.tiscali.be/sohier-ieper/het_westkwartier.htm
sorry, link is in dutch, but it is clearly mentioned and I've got it double checked by other sources,

I know Aalst wasn't always under Flemish control - but at least there seems to be a flaw with the province stats of Aalst and Bruges. Bruges or Burgge was even bigger then Paris in 1066 and in the 1066 the county of Aalst is more powerful then Brugge ? :confused:

so perhaps a tweak in the stats of both provinces should do the trick, but still then there's an issue with the COA of Gent representing Aalst,
:)


Well, indeed he conquired Aalst, but AFAIK it remained within the HRE. Flanders had two lieges, to know France and the HRE. Unfortunately this is not possible in ck. So it is either putt it geographically correct in the HRE or in Flanders, which as Gent is more correct.

To be honest I haven't looked at the stats yet, you could make a suggestion there.
 
Gent was part of the HRE in 1066. As long as this is the case it cannot be a vassal of the Duke of Flanders because that would make it part of France.