Historical discussions. Breathe life into this quiet fori

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

Open chats about our period of history. Hopefully get some discussion and debate going. Its too quiet here compared to some. It's boring. Please join in . I give the floor the first dev member to start us off

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

The crusade of Nicopolis' failure is generally blamed on the We lost the day by the pride and vanity of these French. If they believed my advice, we had enough men to fight our enemies so says the chronicle putting words into Sigismunds mouth. What are others opinions?

[Wallachian]

Unfortunately I've been busy with work so haven't been able to contribute. There are a lot more discussions happening on discord nowadays.

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

I realised that was possibly the case, but im a TWC conservative

[Slaytaninc]

Well according to Konrad Kyeser in Kingdom Come it was because Sigismund listened to Istvan Toth, but I'm pretty sure Toth wasn't a real guy.

[Anubis88]

The crusade of Nicopolis' failure is generally blamed on the We lost the day by the pride and vanity of these French. If they believed my advice, we had enough men to fight our enemies so says the chronicle putting words into Sigismunds mouth. What are others opinions?

Well this isn't a good example of a discussion imho. You'd get people arguing about something 99% even on this forum don't know much about. And saying something so broad as "the vanity and pride" hurt us doesn't help. Would the French even come if they were somehow forced to completely follow Sigismund? How would that army look without them? How would the Ottomans react if they weren't attacked? If there was a stalemate, would Bayezid call upon his reinforcements of which he had plenty?

There is too many what ifs in your question imho.

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

Well, there is another view point had not the French chevalier launched their attack would the rest of the army moved? Did the Hungarian contingent act too slow ? What about rumours of conspiracy?
The crusade does not need be blamed on the French actions

[Magnus Lioncaster]

I'm not sure if this is the correct place, but I'm translating the game and I noticed that Charles I of Austria and V of Spain it's not in the game, not for Naples or even Austria. But Ferdinand I it's there. Why?

[Magnus Lioncaster]

Well, there is another view point had not the French chevalier launched their attack would the rest of the army moved? Did the Hungarian contingent act too slow ? What about rumours of conspiracy?
The crusade does not need be blamed on the French actions

There's an interesting video on Historymarche's channel about Battle of Nicopolis. Really cool. Maybe it's useful.

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

Thank you I will take a look perhaps post a link

[Anubis88]

I'm not sure if this is the correct place, but I'm translating the game and I noticed that Charles I of Austria and V of Spain it's not in the game, not for Naples or even Austria. But Ferdinand I it's there. Why?

I think he has been added by now in the internal version. I think the reason was that he is kinda off the map? Like he wasn't really of Austria, his powerbase was in the low countries before he started inheriting everything, and he didn't really do administer Austria much. Once he transfered his power base to Spain Ferdinand took over Austria. I don't know for which faction he appears though. Even Naples isn't too correct, but probably the best.

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

Charles is a bit everywhere, but needs to be in. Perhaps he could be Carlos for Aragon and Charles for Habsburg?

[Anubis88]

Charles is a bit everywhere, but needs to be in. Perhaps he could be Carlos for Aragon and Charles for Habsburg?

There can't be 2 of them. And btw, with your logic it should be Karl for Habsburg not Charles

[Magnus Lioncaster]

I think that one opcion can be that he apear in naples or austria, and 3 or 4 years later apear an event that make Naples vasall of Austria (or Austria vasall of Napples). That last case sounds good because Ferdinand I can rule Austria, but he depends of the holy roman emperor. By the way, I see in the game that it's a bit wasted the mechanic of vasalls. It's to dificult to have client factions and those who aparently starts with vasalls, actually are just allies.

[Magnus Lioncaster]

Thank you I will take a look perhaps post a link

https://youtu.be/Hw8m1WrQ0l0?si=kpwAznihM3nMF4FF

Here you have.

[Anubis88]

I think that one opcion can be that he apear in naples or austria, and 3 or 4 years later apear an event that make Naples vasall of Austria (or Austria vasall of Napples). That last case sounds good because Ferdinand I can rule Austria, but he depends of the holy roman emperor. By the way, I see in the game that it's a bit wasted the mechanic of vasalls. It's to dificult to have client factions and those who aparently starts with vasalls, actually are just allies.

AFAIK it's impossible to make someone a vassal via event. And the AI is notoriously bad at vassalage mechanics. They often never accept it, you can besiege someone's last settlement 1 turn before it's about to fall with 0 units inside and they will not accept becoming a vassal.

So all those mechanics go out the window i'm afraid. It makes the most sense perhaps to roleplay the Kingdom of Naples being part of the Aragonese crown again like it's at the game start and Carlos to appear there, since he was far more active in the Italian wars than in the wars of Austria

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

How does the union mechanism work?
But you also need Aroganese vice royal rather than king of Naples as that's Charles.
The Habsburg army in Milan is a mixture of Spanish and Germans which is important.
Everything I read speaks of how good the castilian/catalan/Aragonese arqubusieurs and pikeman veterans of the requonquista and even conquistadors