New order in Central Europe

[Incompetent]

I just noticed something: don't cut and paste the Republic of Prague event - it's got 3 action a's!

Well spotted - seeing as people seem to be taking my events seriously, I've also added a bit of description.

About the 'Tuscany refuses' event: Option A is fine. However, B looks rather drastic, and no sane player would choose it. If the Hansa really want to conquer stuff, they can do it the usual way. I would change Action B to:

Action B: "They will regret this"
CB for 60 months, -100 relations, stability -1 (merchants don't like war)

Also, I notice that you give the Hansa 3 stab for proposing annexation, which isn't really warranted. Gaining a rich 1-prov minor and a core for 0.25BB is good enough as it is!

 

[unmerged(38537)]

Of course, I agree, option B in "XXX refuses" is drastic, but I didn't think about it when I was writing that.
But, in my opinion, penalty in reputation is needed. At least 1 or 2 BB...

 

[unmerged(30761)]

Hansa

Hansa was allowed to prosper in the northern europe for no other reason that it allways pledged allegiance to the current emperor of HRE. They had their own quarters in those cities and were not allowed to interact with locals much as local princes were afraid of subversion

How would one script that?

 

[Incompetent]

Hansa was allowed to prosper in the northern europe for no other reason that it allways pledged allegiance to the current emperor of HRE. They had their own quarters in those cities and were not allowed to interact with locals much as local princes were afraid of subversion

How would one script that?

Not all Hanseatic influence was in this form; certainly their presence in cities like London or Novgorod was limited to a Kontor, with severe restrictions on interaction, but some cities (eg Lübeck, Riga) were Hanseatic colonies, some were essentially independent from the local nobles, and thus free to align themselves with the League, while others were not nominally allied, but were so completely economically dependent on the Hanseatic trade that they were effectively under Hansa control.

There are various ways we can generally make the Hansa weak. But if we try to make the Hansa just a bunch of merchants with no significant population under their direct control, they'll be crushed like the Hanseatic countries are in vanilla. The idea in Aberration is to turn them into a major power (albeit a highly urban one - think Venice), so they have to start off rather stronger militarily than they were in real life.

@MA: I was more unhappy with the awarding of cores in your event, though I would say the principle with badboy is to give it by event only when a country does something quite exceptionally aggressive or conciliatory (eg Granada gains BB if it launches a Jihad on the Christians, but loses BB if it grants complete freedom to its Christian population). After all, if the AI Hansa FA the relevant minor, they'll be punished severely by the usual BB system. Perhaps there shouldn't be an option B if the minor refuses.

 

[unmerged(38537)]

@MA: I was more unhappy with the awarding of cores in your event (...)

As I understood, no peaceful annexation = no cores + (if the province conquered by Hansa) problems with nationalism?

(...) though I would say the principle with badboy is to give it by event only when a country does something quite exceptionally aggressive or conciliatory (eg Granada gains BB if it launches a Jihad on the Christians, but loses BB if it grants complete freedom to its Christian population). After all, if the AI Hansa FA the relevant minor, they'll be punished severely by the usual BB system.

Maybe You're right, Kind Sir...

Perhaps there shouldn't be an option B if the minor refuses.

In my opinion, if we deleted option B, we would rework option A, because I think it lacks something... But what exactly? I don't know this.