Which country should I implement using the now free PRO tag?

[Hartmann]

Lycortas: To move the art academy from Venice to Mantua You´ll have to shoot me first. I strongly disagree on Your opinion about Venice&Art. Venice wasn´t just a 'big ship factory'. Instead Venice is the MOST important place regarding art in the 16th century rivaled only by Firenze. (About 25% of all Italian art objects are located at Venice and Firenze alone I read somewhere.) And think of:

- the very beginnings of organised book publishing in Venice at that time
- the many famous painters like Carpaccio, Bellini, Titian and Tintoretto, who solely worked in Venice
- influential writers like Pietro Aretino and Lodovico Dolce

Don´t get me wrong: I don´t deny that Mantua also was in arts. But I never would come up with the idea of judging it superior to Venice in this respect. Even the arch enemies of the Venetians, the Florentines wouldn´t have claimed that. And btw.: with the death of the last Gonzaga in Mantua everything was 'finito' anyway...

Hartmann

 

[unmerged(1150)]

About Transylvania:

The transylvanians cannot be allowed to have very bad relations with hungary, they saw themselves as the 'national party' containing the true hungarians during the decay period after Mathias Corvinus' (Mátyás') death. The division, instead, came about chiefly because of the ottoman invasion of the carpathian basin, ushering in the 'age of trisection' with hungary divided into Habsburg-ruled 'Royal Hungary', Ottoman-ruled hungary and a small Transylvanian kingdom purported to represent the remaining hungarians (Zápolya János was one claimant to the hungarian throne), later vassalised by the Ottomans. The transylvanians played a part in several later conflicts (including the thirty years war) before losing to the Habsburgs in the end and becoming reattatched to central Hungary (under Austrian rule)

I see no reason to separate them from the Hungarians, especially as the latter do not exist as an independant nation during that period. In EU terms, Austria and the Ottoman Empire invaded all of hungary except for transylvania, which was vassalised.

Save the spot for something more important, possibly the Welsh.

 

[Savant]

The problem with Venice

was not that she didn't have all these prized possessions but rather that she could never muster any ideology to support her ambitions.

Hartmann is correct in all he noted about the material features of Venice. I would argue that materially, Venice would be a better candidate as a 'major' in the Grand Campaign than half of those currently represented. Yet, what distinguished her so from a primitive England or a stone-aged Russia? I'll tell you. She had no message to resonate with developing civilization. She was a mute when it came to moral and spiritual inspiration. She was no more evil than most nations, in fact, she was probably more moral in her conduct. But she had no message, political, spiritual, or cultural that could unify people.

I don't know if that could be modeled in the game. It is a 'fifth' factor in national success, something noticeably absent in Venice. She was a superpower in all that mattered materially except the size of native population. But that too could have been overcome if she had some unifying vision for humanity. Alas, being Venetian, I regret this. Her biggest failure is perhaps the most intangible yet most revered feature of a legendary empire. There was no Arthur for Venice. Dandolo would compare poorly - much as a 'Ferengi' I'm afraid.

What is your take on that Hartmann?

 

[unmerged(521)]

Hartmann,

Where do you live so i can come over and kill you?

kidding!

i wouldn't kill you, much....

I agree that Venice was important in the Arts, i just feel that between 1480 and 1520 Mantua was ahead of almost anywhere in Europe when it comes to being a 'Patron of the Arts' kind of place. Not to disagree with you on some of your info,
but, many sources subsume Mantua into Venice in this period and many things that were being done in Mantua cast a glow on their semi-overlords, Venice. I am unfortunetly not home at the moment so i do not have Isabelle D'Este Gonzaga's writings in front of me nor any of my other sources, but i read about many writers, architects, musicians, engineers, painters etc finding a place in Mantua. Some of these people were the best in their respective fields and the (limited) reading i have done about Venice seems to state that Venice would 'buy up' some one who was already famous to add to the cities luster, not support the actual development process in the arts and sciences.

I'm sure you will disagree with this, but i feel that it is at least partially true. I again, almost feel Mantua should be a seperate country in the game, but i understand why we are not adding them.
A lot of this is just my love of learning new stuff!
one year ago i knew virtually nothing about Mantua per se, but i have been reading as much as possible about the area, and reading Isabelle's letters, and i chatted with a friend and his wife who live in Venice to get a locals view on the area. (it helps that they are an Archeologist and an Historian!)
so my excitement with Mantua does not mean i disagree with you research, it is just a further view into a less known city in the Italian Renessaince.

Now, Emillia (D'Este) being the second richest state in Italy after Venice and definately NOT being part of the Papacy is not up for questioning though! I was also surprised as i figured Milan or Genoa or Florence would be next to Venice in the wealth department, but after much reading i have found that this is just not so.

I'm not sure how this would effect the game as the Papacy did own land in what is called the Emillia province in the game. New map! EU2! i'll buy it! i'll buy 5 copies! just give us a map that is accurate and with smaller provinces.

Also, it would be nice if the Ile d'France/Artois/Hainaut area was correct. I have walked that route and Paris is not that close to Holland! there should be a 'Ile d'France, Hainaut, Artois,and BRABANT provinces before you reach Holland.

well, you did great work, sleep well,
i'll most likely kill you in the morning. (Wesley)

Michael

 

[Guest]

Originally posted by Mad Lord Snapcase
About Transylvania:

The transylvanians cannot be allowed to have very bad relations with hungary, they saw themselves as the 'national party' containing the true hungarians during the decay period after Mathias Corvinus' (Mátyás') death. The division, instead, came about chiefly because of the ottoman invasion of the carpathian basin, ushering in the 'age of trisection' with hungary divided into Habsburg-ruled 'Royal Hungary', Ottoman-ruled hungary and a small Transylvanian kingdom purported to represent the remaining hungarians (Zápolya János was one claimant to the hungarian throne), later vassalised by the Ottomans. The transylvanians played a part in several later conflicts (including the thirty years war) before losing to the Habsburgs in the end and becoming reattatched to central Hungary (under Austrian rule)

I see no reason to separate them from the Hungarians, especially as the latter do not exist as an independant nation during that period. In EU terms, Austria and the Ottoman Empire invaded all of hungary except for transylvania, which was vassalised.

Save the spot for something more important, possibly the Welsh.

Either Transylvania and hungary will go to war, simulating the civil war between pretendants to thron, or Hungaria will diplomatically annex...
Without Transylvania, current Hungary is huge in 1492. But fact is Royal authority in Transylvania was only nominal after Corvin death. The royal army at Mohacs was concurrenced by the Transylvania army which didn't joint and whose leader vassalized to Turkey the year after and fought with Turks 2nd Mohacs battle.
It's to my sense a little more useful to have a real country which lasted until 1690 than the Welsh which didn't appear at all during the period

 

[unmerged(1150)]

Originally posted by laurent Favre


Either Transylvania and hungary will go to war, simulating the civil war between pretendants to thron, or Hungaria will diplomatically annex...
Without Transylvania, current Hungary is huge in 1492. But fact is Royal authority in Transylvania was only nominal after Corvin death. The royal army at Mohacs was concurrenced by the Transylvania army which didn't joint and whose leader vassalized to Turkey the year after and fought with Turks 2nd Mohacs battle.
It's to my sense a little more useful to have a real country which lasted until 1690 than the Welsh which didn't appear at all during the period

The war about pretence to the throne was between the Austrians and transylavians, essentially. I suppose you could simulate the period of civil strife (relatively short) by splitting the country in two, but I doubt it is worth it as 'Hungary' gets swallowed up (in real life, that is) after a short period. Instead, what you would do is give the Hungarians extraordinaly weak leaders from the beginning (Úlászló (Vladislav) was essentially a puppet for the nobles, nothing more, and ruined the country to a great extent), simulate the Dózsa György peasant revolt using historical events, and generally break down the powerful infrastructure, some army dessertations perhaps, to guarantee hungary is not too powerful.

Any hungarian history book (Okay, I've only read two ) will argue that the Transylvanians 'held the Hungarian flag high' during the split. The countries were not particularly ethnically or culturally different either. I still don't think Transylvania deserves its own country... Nor wales. Another asian or american culture, perhaps?

 

[unmerged(530)]

Arent Transylvanains Orthodox Vlachs and not Catholic Magyrs?

 

[Dark Knight]

The region called Transylvania had a lot of Magyars and Germans in the western parts, but was otherwise Vlach/Romanian. Not sure of the exact population figures, unfortunately. Maybe, at this time the country known as Transylvania didn't include what would later be its eastern portion?

 

[unmerged(1150)]

Actually, in pure population numbers the two ethnic groups were about equal in size, and certainly the Romanians/Vlach were a later addition. Anyway, it doesn't matter in the same way that it doesn't matter that Finland consists mostly of finns, because most of the elite consisted of Hungarians. Let's face it, real popular revolutions are not really a feature of the game this early on.

 

[unmerged(670)]

Italy

Originally posted by Lycortas2
Savant,

<snip>

Also, does it seem like Firenze is a bit to far south? they have Firenze where Siena or Perugia should be. I think maybe this was done to give Luca a full province, but honestly, Luca's territory was very small.

<snip>

Michael

My take is that you're right, Firenze should be Siena and Luca should be Firenze. But can the capital be moved to 'Luca' as well?

My maps seem to indicate that Genoa was vassalized to Milan in 1492 (liberated by the French in 1499).

Rgds,
Johan

 

[Hartmann]

Johan43, You could do me a favor. Could You please have a look into Your cherished Atlas and try to determine whether Memel in 1492 belonged to Prussia or to the Teutonic Order?

Thanks alot ,

Hartmann

 

[unmerged(670)]

Originally posted by Hartmann
Johan43, You could do me a favor. Could You please have a look into Your cherished Atlas and try to determine whether Memel in 1492 belonged to Prussia or to the Teutonic Order?

Thanks alot ,

Hartmann

Will do, answer tomorrow.

Rgds,
Johan (sassanide@yahoo.se)

 

[unmerged(670)]

Memel

Hello again!

Technically Memel belonged to Prussia.

However, East Prussia was a duchy belonging to the Order, vassalized to Poland somewhere around 1460 (66?).

It was liberated from the Order sometime after the start of the campaign (1512 IIrc).

So, I think East Prussia has been divided into Prussia (independent but vassalized minor neutral) and Memel (part of the Order) to represent this divided allegiance.

So I think there's a strong argument _not_ to change it's present status.

Rgds,
Johan

 

[Hartmann]

Good! Thanks alot.

Hartmann

 

[unmerged(1531)]

It looks that the PRO tag won't be a Provence revolter. That's a good thing. In the revolt.txt, we can see that this country could get provinces 404, 406, 407 and 422, better known as Nice, Provence, Dauphiné and Languedoc.

I think this is a strange choice of provinces for that minor. According to it's flag, derived from the one of the count of Barcelona, I don't really see this country extend eastward through Dauphiné and Nice, but rather toward Catalunya.

 

[unmerged(676)]

Hmm.. Looks like Serbia are winning a popularity contest!! Doing the Serbian graphics left me with 3 choices.
1.The red lion of 'Old Serbia'. I think that's the 'Kingdom of Serbia' (in Kossovo) that Yannellis mentioned in another thread.
2. The boar of 'Serbia Proper'. The wounded boar is the apocryphal arms of Serbia, later assigned to region of Shumadia.
3. The red, with a white cross and 4 C's (or B's)

I will go for the 'Lion' unless someone comes up with a better suggestion.

 

[BiB]

I haven't actually read the thread (bar the initial question) but ever sicne I first played the game I found it weird the Serbs didn't try to revolt and establis a state while 'countries' like the Provence did.

 

[unmerged(281)]

Yikes! I did not realize that democracy would decide how the tag was used. The fact is Serbia will only make Turkey's performance even more pathetic. Now I understand that this is mainly due to the 3 province limits in wars, which means the Turks rarely vanquish the Mamelukes and Persians as utterly as they did historically. With that larger empire they were then able to wage almost continous wars against first Hungary then Austria. Barring some massive change in provinve acquisition the only other answer is to weaken the Balkans. Transylvania will do this nicely. It will weaken Hungary, and the Transylvanian leaders I added to the Hungarian leader file will be moved to the Transylvanian one. This always bothered me that I had to have them added to Hungary because there was no Transylvania. Also, I might add that this would mimic an important historical outcome. The Transylvanians not fighting on the side of King Louis at Mohacs in 1526 may have changed that battle's result. As is it was, the Hungarian kingdom completely collapsed and broke into Austrian held Hungary, Turkish held, and a greater Transylvania which tried to play the Turks and Austrians off on another.

 

[unmerged(530)]

Id say the cross with the 4 C's is the best, I just like it.

It depends if we have Serbia implemented as a revolter, or they control Bosnia from the start.

 

[Hartmann]

The problem with pathetic Turkey will be gone in IGC 1.7 /patch 1.08. So implementing Serbia wouldn´t pose a problem, I think.

Whereas I myself voted for Bremen, I now think this would mean wasting a tag. Resthansa (Bremen&Lübeck) in an initial alliance with Holstein and Pommerania develops quite nicely. Mexico would be quite nice also with Spain being in danger of loosing it, but in the end I think It´s the Balkans which need more action! So I more and more tend to implementing one of the countries Serbia, Bulgaria or Transylvania. I think Bulgaria is not as important as Serbia, which leaves Serbia and Transsylvania. Even better would be having them both, but then we would have to drop another (European) tag and I don´t know which of the revolters we could drop with good conscience.
For Serbia it would be vital to have some sort of reasonable monarch list (with stats) like we had with Greece. Could anyone provide me with it? Same goes for Transylvania.

Hartmann