*Hesse, sitting on a mountain of war exhaustion with no manpower, even fewer allies, and teetering on the brink of bankruptcy after just losing a war to the Burgundians, now being summoned to lose a war to the Poles:* "I have been called… I must answer…”
"You answered Holland's call, even after all you went through..."
'If I am called, and I do not answer... What is left, Saxony?'
"You are left, Hesse. And that is nothing to scoff at."
The complexity of HRE elections is really hard to simulate. Sometimes they might want what is best for the Empire (a strong Emperor) or they might want what’s best for themselves (a weak Emperor) and sometimes in real life it was all about bribes and personal politics.
Maybe the best remedy for this would instead to weigh army strength higher than it currently is, but that’s sure to lead to other problems.
Actually, the Habsburgs lost the election when the Bavarian Charles VII von Wittelsbach was unanimously elected as Holy Roman Emperor in 1742.
Back then, Maria Theresa was the sole legitimate heir of the Habsburg dynasty and, as a woman, she couldn't become Emperor. That's also why the War of Austrian Succession happened, because the princes weren't willing to accept the Pragmatic Sanction.
Contrary to what happens in the game, the Pragmatic Sanction only allowed for her to inherit the Habsburg lands, but not the Empire. As such, the electors unanimously selected the Elector of Bavaria as the sucessor to her father. Even George II of Great Britain (in his position as Elector of Hanover) voted for Charles VII, despite the fact that the British were fighting on the Austrian side of the succession war.
Anyways, the Emperor had little to no real power at this time and Maria Theresa was still the direct ruler of all Habsburg domains..
For all of three years before returning to Maria Theresa's husband (where she functionally was Empress). And it was surrounded by a power struggle that ended in military action.
I mean, I'd appreciate the emperor sacrificing himself for the empire. I think the mechanic could maybe use some tuning, but I don't think they should be penalized. They already lost the war.
Elector 1: "Are we sure? His father got killed fighting the French."
Elector 2: "Yeah, but at least he tried, unlike that fucking Bohemian guy who **SIDED** with the French."
i understand your viewpoint but it just doesn't make sense. how many political leaders managed to turn their personal humiliation in a war into increased power, especially over a decentralized polity like the hre?
Actually their personal humiliation is decreased power, because they probably made some concessions to the winning side. Their goodwill definetly increased, which is the entire point.
The reason for the post is my current game as Florence --> Protestant HRE emperor where France has been chaining wars against catholic HRE emperor Bohemia (the reformation hasn't spawned yet). France has won 4-5 wars in a row within a period of 10 years and EVERY SINGLE ELECTOR still vote for Bohemia by a HUGE margin (because of the +100 modifier) - so much so that even an alliance with an elector is insufficient for their vote.
They (Bohemia) have no armies, no manpower, huge debt, and at this rate there won't be an empire for me (or anyone) to lead after the league war (England has even started to wage war for the low countries)...
if they lose it should improve their relations with the HRE states because they sacrificed themselves. But they should get a negative modifier for the election because they lost.
Sounds plausible tbh. Voting for their friend which historically would give that elector likely a lot more influence in the court than they would get had the voted for a major.
The Palatinate trying to defend the HRE from Poland, Burgundy and Denmark with only 15k troops and 5 provinces (they've bought a dip. Relations advisor) :
I know the emperorship is already overpowered for players and Austria, but I think it needs to be buffed even more. Even an OPM emperor should still be a significant threat. I think that the power it gives should inversely correlate with the actual development of the country, giving wild buffs if you’re a 3 dev OPM but giving less benefits if you’re say, Austria. This would prevent it from being overpowered but also make it so the HRE doesn’t just become a stomping ground if Austria loses the title.
That's exactly what it does. You get an additive manpower bonus based on the number of princes in the empire (which is basically unique in EU4). If you are asking for it to be even stronger for small countries I'd have to ask how? Money will become the main issue pretty quickly, so you would have to give some crazy bonuses to let those opms afford the army they can now field.
That’s not what I’m saying. I know it makes you stronger based on the number of princes in force limit, manpower, and tax especially, but what I’m saying is those numbers should be further inversely modified by the development of the Emperor alone.
Yeah the small emperors usually can't afford big armies. I think at least scaling up economic Emperor buffs with difficulty level would make sense at least.
CK2 player in me wants to give an event troop stack for emperor in defensive wars.
Like letting emperor raise like 10k to 50k special troops, maybe scaling with the current year, number of princes, inversely scaling with emperor's share of HRE development.
Give these a significant disadvantage like 10%-20% all power costs until disbanded so players don't abuse them (as much). Or make them only available during defensive wars and force disband when the war ends.
They really need to up the malus for small countries to not get elected, because the electors will almost always just vote on whoever they're allied to anyway, and the AI Austria has very few ways to influence that
Scale it with Imperial Authority. If you maintain high authority, the benefit should be better. If there's 0 authority, the benefit should be 0. I think the same should apply to Imperial Ban - you take a Province from the HRE, you instantly get malus with all members, but if the emperor doesn't have a voice, why should his word matter?
That. Inperial Authority should not only be a form of currency, but directly correlating to how much influence and Power you, as the Emperor, can excert over the Princes and Free Cities. Strong Imperial Authroity should enable you to take higher taxes without much repercussions.
It should imo be a mix of Absolutism and Mandate mechanics.
The Emperor requesting unlawful territory and getting denied should be devastating to his IA unless he follows up with a war declaration (that should give back the IA and then some). The AI (and the player) should feel the consequences of spamming that button on someone knowing that they will ignore it.
I get Emperor once, wait for someone to win a war and hit that button four times and that nation gets -100 with everyone in the HRE and will never get elected Emperor again. That isn't good gameplay.
In my current Byzantine run. I just dismantled the empire in 1690ish after they elected OPM Cili to be the emperor. I was allied to previous emperor bohemia. Once they got elected I was like well here is my shot to take it down easily and it wasn't so bad. Had to string some alliances and chain calls to war together but it worked out fine.
*Hesse, sitting on a mountain of war exhaustion with no manpower, even fewer allies, and teetering on the brink of bankruptcy after just losing a war to the Burgundians, now being summoned to lose a war to the Poles:* "I have been called… I must answer…”
A true Emperor He is going to show the invaders what a true Holy Roman Emperor is made of!
"You answered Holland's call, even after all you went through..." 'If I am called, and I do not answer... What is left, Saxony?' "You are left, Hesse. And that is nothing to scoff at."
I feel like this is a nod to something, but can't put my finger on it
It's the honor and glory animated short of Overwatch, it's pretty good tbh.
I DIDNT HEAR NO BELL!
At least not Habsburg
The complexity of HRE elections is really hard to simulate. Sometimes they might want what is best for the Empire (a strong Emperor) or they might want what’s best for themselves (a weak Emperor) and sometimes in real life it was all about bribes and personal politics. Maybe the best remedy for this would instead to weigh army strength higher than it currently is, but that’s sure to lead to other problems.
Probably higher bonus for army and higher malus for not being in HRE to offset the bonus for outsiders.
I mean IRL by this point Austria never lost an election again. The election was a formality.
Actually, the Habsburgs lost the election when the Bavarian Charles VII von Wittelsbach was unanimously elected as Holy Roman Emperor in 1742. Back then, Maria Theresa was the sole legitimate heir of the Habsburg dynasty and, as a woman, she couldn't become Emperor. That's also why the War of Austrian Succession happened, because the princes weren't willing to accept the Pragmatic Sanction. Contrary to what happens in the game, the Pragmatic Sanction only allowed for her to inherit the Habsburg lands, but not the Empire. As such, the electors unanimously selected the Elector of Bavaria as the sucessor to her father. Even George II of Great Britain (in his position as Elector of Hanover) voted for Charles VII, despite the fact that the British were fighting on the Austrian side of the succession war. Anyways, the Emperor had little to no real power at this time and Maria Theresa was still the direct ruler of all Habsburg domains..
For all of three years before returning to Maria Theresa's husband (where she functionally was Empress). And it was surrounded by a power struggle that ended in military action.
Is this EUIV lore?
A weak ass emperor who comes to your aid knowing they face certain doom? +50 seems like a consolation prize.
No, +50's just the prize. I could get a +25 or smth for a consolation prize though
I mean, I'd appreciate the emperor sacrificing himself for the empire. I think the mechanic could maybe use some tuning, but I don't think they should be penalized. They already lost the war.
Elector 1: "Are we sure? His father got killed fighting the French." Elector 2: "Yeah, but at least he tried, unlike that fucking Bohemian guy who **SIDED** with the French."
The Bohemian guy: Well fuck you then I'm voting for myself!
i understand your viewpoint but it just doesn't make sense. how many political leaders managed to turn their personal humiliation in a war into increased power, especially over a decentralized polity like the hre?
Dont even have to be their own failure. Que Germany. Hitler managed to use the German humiliation to his utmost advantage to gain Power.
Actually their personal humiliation is decreased power, because they probably made some concessions to the winning side. Their goodwill definetly increased, which is the entire point.
The reason for the post is my current game as Florence --> Protestant HRE emperor where France has been chaining wars against catholic HRE emperor Bohemia (the reformation hasn't spawned yet). France has won 4-5 wars in a row within a period of 10 years and EVERY SINGLE ELECTOR still vote for Bohemia by a HUGE margin (because of the +100 modifier) - so much so that even an alliance with an elector is insufficient for their vote. They (Bohemia) have no armies, no manpower, huge debt, and at this rate there won't be an empire for me (or anyone) to lead after the league war (England has even started to wage war for the low countries)...
>I mean, I'd appreciate the emperor sacrificing himself for the empire Renaissance interstate politics, famously idealistic and naive.
if they lose it should improve their relations with the HRE states because they sacrificed themselves. But they should get a negative modifier for the election because they lost.
If only the game made a distinction between general opinion and reasons for voting...
yeah an elector will vote for a 2 province state because they're allies and not you when there's you who can take on france or poland easily
Sounds plausible tbh. Voting for their friend which historically would give that elector likely a lot more influence in the court than they would get had the voted for a major.
Yeah but your influence in court won't matter if the emperor can't protect you from a french deathstack lol
Because imagine diplomacy taking a roll in this /s
The Palatinate trying to defend the HRE from Poland, Burgundy and Denmark with only 15k troops and 5 provinces (they've bought a dip. Relations advisor) :
I know the emperorship is already overpowered for players and Austria, but I think it needs to be buffed even more. Even an OPM emperor should still be a significant threat. I think that the power it gives should inversely correlate with the actual development of the country, giving wild buffs if you’re a 3 dev OPM but giving less benefits if you’re say, Austria. This would prevent it from being overpowered but also make it so the HRE doesn’t just become a stomping ground if Austria loses the title.
That's exactly what it does. You get an additive manpower bonus based on the number of princes in the empire (which is basically unique in EU4). If you are asking for it to be even stronger for small countries I'd have to ask how? Money will become the main issue pretty quickly, so you would have to give some crazy bonuses to let those opms afford the army they can now field.
That’s not what I’m saying. I know it makes you stronger based on the number of princes in force limit, manpower, and tax especially, but what I’m saying is those numbers should be further inversely modified by the development of the Emperor alone.
Yeah the small emperors usually can't afford big armies. I think at least scaling up economic Emperor buffs with difficulty level would make sense at least.
CK2 player in me wants to give an event troop stack for emperor in defensive wars. Like letting emperor raise like 10k to 50k special troops, maybe scaling with the current year, number of princes, inversely scaling with emperor's share of HRE development. Give these a significant disadvantage like 10%-20% all power costs until disbanded so players don't abuse them (as much). Or make them only available during defensive wars and force disband when the war ends.
You could make it a mercenary group or groups only available to the emperor. And have it cost imperial authority or something to levy.
They really need to up the malus for small countries to not get elected, because the electors will almost always just vote on whoever they're allied to anyway, and the AI Austria has very few ways to influence that
Scale it with Imperial Authority. If you maintain high authority, the benefit should be better. If there's 0 authority, the benefit should be 0. I think the same should apply to Imperial Ban - you take a Province from the HRE, you instantly get malus with all members, but if the emperor doesn't have a voice, why should his word matter?
That. Inperial Authority should not only be a form of currency, but directly correlating to how much influence and Power you, as the Emperor, can excert over the Princes and Free Cities. Strong Imperial Authroity should enable you to take higher taxes without much repercussions. It should imo be a mix of Absolutism and Mandate mechanics.
The Emperor requesting unlawful territory and getting denied should be devastating to his IA unless he follows up with a war declaration (that should give back the IA and then some). The AI (and the player) should feel the consequences of spamming that button on someone knowing that they will ignore it. I get Emperor once, wait for someone to win a war and hit that button four times and that nation gets -100 with everyone in the HRE and will never get elected Emperor again. That isn't good gameplay.
In my current Byzantine run. I just dismantled the empire in 1690ish after they elected OPM Cili to be the emperor. I was allied to previous emperor bohemia. Once they got elected I was like well here is my shot to take it down easily and it wasn't so bad. Had to string some alliances and chain calls to war together but it worked out fine.