Then, aren't other cultures eligible for this too, like albanian? Also, why swahili? :wacko: Zanj is a very powerful african country in Interregnum.
-
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.
Balbo said:
Yep.
We have Albanian in the list.
To make the list it needs to be a culture which doesn't have its own state.
So, you can't get Albanian culture if Albania exists. Ditto Lithuanian, Sardinian, Cymric etc.
Large, wealthy cultures are a different class, because of the game balance issues.
But, in theory, they could all be in there.
Varcislaus said:
If you meant this post, it was the last one on the previous page and I probably missed it when the next post was done and a new page started.
To answer: Aberration.
You'd need to ask The Archduke why he used the traditional monarch lists. I doubt he has a reason. If you think Interregnum is incomplete, Aberration was even less. so.
We have never paid much attention to Poland and have not changed the Aberration monarch and leader lists.
Please help us.
Varcislaus said:
Don't worry about ids or anything at this point.
Simply provide a list of names and their possible dates.
I'll write them up and then you can provide the stat numbers.
Please include an alternative family line, for when/if Poland emerges in revolt un the Great General.
Cheers,
Matty
Last edited:
Varcislaus said:
Make sure you have read all of this thread.
The idea is that it would emerge as a revolter after the start of the reformation.
Game-wise, 1590 onwards would be best. My assumption is that this would be a Protestant revolt, because likely the states that would have conquered the polish provinces would be Catholic, and quite stringent Catholic.
Were there any historical protestant movements or figures in Polish history?
Biggest calvinist movment in Poland was "polish brethren"(also called Antitrinitarians, Arians, or Socinians, Polish: Arianie, Bracia Polscy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Brethren
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Brethren
Varcislaus said:
Then let us make them the basis of the Polish rebellion.
Poland would emerge under the leadership of a steadfastly anti-papal general who is 6/5/5 of 5/6/5 or 5/5/6.
My preference is that he is an almost Napoleonic figure, in that, given early success, he re-establishes the Polish state and then decides to head out in support of other protestant and nations and protestant cities and protestants generally.
However, on his death this Polish Empire would essentially collapse, at least in ai hands.
Varcislaus said:
Possibly.
He might make a very useful follow-up figure, but my personal feeling is that this is a little too late.
I don't think we need a historical figure, we can just make one up.
But Sobieski could make an excellent successor, who tried to hold the Polish Empire together.
polish monarchs
orginal line
Władysław II 1390-1432 ( 3 3 8 ) DIP ADM MIL
Siemowit I 1432-1477 ( 4 6 4 )
Trojden I 1477-1483 ( 3 3 3 )
Bolesław VI 1483-1501 ( 5 2 2 )
Janusz I 1501-1522 ( 4 4 6 )
Kazimierz IV 1522-1545 ( 3 8 3 )
Siemowit II Słaby 1545-1590 ( 1 1 1 )
Jerzy Bolesław 1590-1612 ( 3 3 2 )
Arkadiusz Jerzy 1612-1629 ( 2 2 4 )
Janusz II 1629-1700 ( 6 6 6 )
Kazimierz V Józef 1700-1733 ( 4 8 5 )
Władysław III Jan 1733-1750 ( 3 4 4 )
August Trojden 1750-1779 ( 4 6 7 )
August II 1779-1830 ( 7 3 6 )
alternative line
Stanisław Kowalski ( Great General ) 1588-1640
Jan Kowalski 1640-1679
Jakub Kowalski 1679-1695
Hieronim Augustyn Lubomirski 1695-1702
Stanisław Leszczyński 1702-1766
Bogusław Leszczyński 1766-1790
Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski 1790-1830
What you think Matty ?
orginal line
Władysław II 1390-1432 ( 3 3 8 ) DIP ADM MIL
Siemowit I 1432-1477 ( 4 6 4 )
Trojden I 1477-1483 ( 3 3 3 )
Bolesław VI 1483-1501 ( 5 2 2 )
Janusz I 1501-1522 ( 4 4 6 )
Kazimierz IV 1522-1545 ( 3 8 3 )
Siemowit II Słaby 1545-1590 ( 1 1 1 )
Jerzy Bolesław 1590-1612 ( 3 3 2 )
Arkadiusz Jerzy 1612-1629 ( 2 2 4 )
Janusz II 1629-1700 ( 6 6 6 )
Kazimierz V Józef 1700-1733 ( 4 8 5 )
Władysław III Jan 1733-1750 ( 3 4 4 )
August Trojden 1750-1779 ( 4 6 7 )
August II 1779-1830 ( 7 3 6 )
alternative line
Stanisław Kowalski ( Great General ) 1588-1640
Jan Kowalski 1640-1679
Jakub Kowalski 1679-1695
Hieronim Augustyn Lubomirski 1695-1702
Stanisław Leszczyński 1702-1766
Bogusław Leszczyński 1766-1790
Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski 1790-1830
What you think Matty ?
First, thank you for actually producing useful material. There have been many people who ask for things, demand things or say they'll do something and never do.
Second, I commend you for not giving the monarchs great stats, which every new coder is tempted to do, because they want their country to do well.
I will use what you have produced for 1.07, but the events for the Polish Empire will not be in 1.07, but instead the next version, 1.08.
Second, I commend you for not giving the monarchs great stats, which every new coder is tempted to do, because they want their country to do well.
I will use what you have produced for 1.07, but the events for the Polish Empire will not be in 1.07, but instead the next version, 1.08.
Varcislaus said:
Well methinks that the "great general" could be Jan Zamoyski as he was a great person in all regards (and his lifetime can always be moved a bit). And maybe taking a bit more militarististic approach towards succesors.
like maybe
Jan Zamoyski (teh great one) 1570ish - 1600ish (goals - restore the borders of the first piasts)
Stanisław Żółkiewski (teh able successor very good mil and adm and medium dyp) 1600 - 1620
Stanisław Koniecpolski (the last great one - Great military but weak other things and brewing insde/outside problem) 1620 - 1646 sudden death
like infighting over inheritance with like 3 sides getting involved TO, Hungary, Saxony (if crusade no + anexed BRA)/Emperor(if crusade yes)
About the outcomes - like partitioning between SAX/TO/HUN but if Emperor then a chance of survival.
Another thing about the "Piast line" I would like to propose something - why not change the whole history a bit. We could start with the inheritance of Kazimir the Great going to Kaźko of Słupsk instead of andegavins - meaning no Jadwiga meaning no Jagiełło meaning no alliance with LIT (+ it stays pagan meaning) TO has easy time beating it up.
Lithuania doesn't exist in Interregnum. It's had it's own heyday in the closing decades of the 14th century, if I remember correctly.
Yes, have a quick read of the Interregnum History. parts of it are now outdated or nerfed, but the sections on Lithuania are accurate still. It also gets a mention in the histories of TO and Halych-Volhynia.
While we would like to have events for a possible Lith revival, it's history was very different and really there is no connection of significance with Poland in Interregnum.
While we would like to have events for a possible Lith revival, it's history was very different and really there is no connection of significance with Poland in Interregnum.
MattyG said:
Like exept Lithuanian kings (still) in Poland. I know that LIT doesnt exist at the start and ecerything I said was ment to be about the pre-start "historical" part.
In Interregnum Poland was created after succefull Lithuanian crusade , there never was lithuanian in polish throne , in Interregnum it will by highly unlikely.
Piasts are still in rule (mainly masovian line ) .
Matty said about great general : " I don't think we need a historical figure, we can just make one up. "
Piasts are still in rule (mainly masovian line ) .
Matty said about great general : " I don't think we need a historical figure, we can just make one up. "