Deus Vult Improvement Pack - Discussion

Veldmaarschalk said:

Removing Capua would mean no Richard Drengot of Aversa, after Robert Guiscard the most powerfull Norman ruler in southern Italy in the middle of the 11th century.

Capua was far more important then Potenza, IMHO

Click to expand...

I realized that, but capua is so close to napoli that in the map, capua occupies benevento's place.
Will it be better to split napoli into capua and napoli?

crusaderking said:

I realized that, but capua is so close to napoli that in the map, capua occupies benevento's place.
Will it be better to split napoli into capua and napoli?

Click to expand...

Napoli is already going to be split in Napoli and Gaeta (I hope)

Russia could do with some pointless provinces being cut if you're working on a map mod. In the north loads of them could be merged. Populated for the most part by horticultural/hunter-gatherer societies, a bunch of them can only be there to give tribute to Novgorod or the Vladimir principality, and it can be annoying to spend half the game running about these barren lands putting down tiny revolts.

Anyways, re the scenario's 1187 Rus set-up.

The Vladimir principality and surroundings in 1187 remain intolerably inaccurate for anyone who has read anything on it.

1) No principality of Moscow nor any principality of Tver existed in 1187, in fact not until Grand Prince Alexander Nevsky of Vladimir gave each fortress to his sons Yaroslav (Tver) and Daniil (Moscow), whose descendents fought for the honour of Vladimir "Grand Prince" (chief Mongol tax-collector in Rus). His other sons got Pereslavl-Zalessky (c573), Gorodets (c585) as well as Novgorod. Nothing wrong I suppose (nothing right either) with Tver having a count in 1187, but not a Prince if that is also the rank of Vladimir.

2) At the start of the scenario, the Vladimir can raise 4280 troops, while Moscow (fictional) can raise 6950 and Novgorod (the vassal of Vladimir) can raise 7844. Given that the Prince of Vladimir often had the status as overlord of most of the other Rus' princes in this period, this is clearly absurd.

3) The current Prince of Moscow in the game is not even of the right kindred. Yaroslav Vsevolodich was of the Chernigov Ryurikid branch not the Monomach Vladimir-Suzdal branch. He should be Prince of Chernigov, while Moskva, Bryansk and Kolomna should got to Vsevolod "the Big Nest" (id = 22670).

4) Rostov (Duchy) and Pereyslavl-Zalessky (Rostov's vassal) were firmly part of the Vladimir principality

5) In Jan. 1187, the Principality of Pereyaslavl was ruled by Vladimir Glebovich of the Vladimir-Suzdal Ryurikids (id = 22700; currently count of c573, Pereyslavl'Zaleesky), not by Vladimir Svyatoslavich (id = 22600) of the Chernigov Ryurikids, who never ruled anything major. Vladimir Glebovich should definitely be the vassal of Vsevolod "the Big Nest".

6) Without asking who the current prince of Novgorod is supposed to represent, most Novgorod Princes were installed by Vladimir-Suzdal in the period, so in an ideal world the Big-Nest ought to have a claim or something to represent this. This isn't so important as the main function of the Prince in Novgorod was to leach off the republic's revenue in exchange for military protection ... it wasn't turned into the family property of the Vladimir princes. Also, Novgorod's vassals consist of Russian placeholder counts in Russian speaking areas. These areas were Finnic and Permic tribes from whom Novgorod took trade-tribute, and shouldn't have Russian counts or Russian culture.

7) Could one at least code Vladimir (and perhaps Kiev to) as a Kingdom so it can at least force vassalize other princes?

jordarkelf said:

Russia is not something I'm familiar with (at all), so I've really no idea why the setup is at it is. I've inherited that from the post-1.05 IPs.

Comment on two things?

1) Did these areas have local rulers in 1187, or were they vassals of Vladimir? In CK often a powerful count is given a duke title (prince for orthodox), even if this is not historically correct. Look at Holland or Flanders for example: both were counties, but in CK they're duchies to represent their power.

Click to expand...

No, they didn't have local rulers, those only came in the following century when they were granted out to different sons.

jordarkelf said:

7) There are two options here... either I use two free unrecreatable king tags (LPOL & GPOL for example) to create the kingdoms of Vladimir and Kiev for use in 1187 (and possibly other scenarios), or I split up the recreatable area of Rus', so there could be a creatable Rus' as well as something else (no idea for the name, or how they should be split). We'd then have Vladimir and/or Kiev as Rus' in the scenario, but the kingdom itself would be much smaller.
.

Click to expand...

Is it not possible to change the code in 1187_scenario_titles from:

tier = duchy

to
tier = kingdom

I think I remember I used to do that .... hmm. Another thing I did in the past (it gets wiped out after every update, which is why I'm rather more vocal than others on matters like this) ... was to use hardcoded kingdom tags for recreatable duchies. I'm not suggesting for a minute that you do this, but for a few months Russia in my game had a duchy tier kingdom ranked Vladimir and Kiev, as well as creatable Russia, which, along with Polotsk and Novgorod and one or two smaller others, were the only recreatable duchies in Russia. That worked for history, as well as anything could, but might not be good for gameplay.

jordarkelf said:

I'm all for making the setup more correct, but I really have no idea where to begin.
Reading through the lines, I take it there should be the following setup:
1) Kiev: independent
2) Vladimir: independent, rules over:
2a) Tver
2b) Muscovy
2c) Novgorod
2d) Pereyaslavl

Is this more or less correct?


Really what I'd love to see is a thread like was done for Scotland, discussing the new setup. I don't have enough info on the period and area to do the research here, but of course I'll do my best to get it into the DVIP.
If you're up to it, please create a new thread where we can discuss in detail the situation in Russia -- so it can become clear who rules over which counties, and who is a vassal of whom.

Click to expand...

As neither Moscow nor Tver existed in the period of the first two scenarios as a anything more than fortresses for the Vladimir prince to entertain guests and lodge, arguably these shouldn't exist as recreatable duchies at all; but I also appreciate that because the Moscow-Tver fight is one of the few high-profile things from medieval Russia, there's probably a desire to keep them.

For this scenario, to cut out the technicalities for now, you'd be looking at these as "senior" principalities, in no particular order:

* Kiev
* Chernigov
* Vladimir (Kliazma-Volga watershed), which, yes, would include Moscow and Tver
* Pereyaslavl
* Vladimir (in Volhynia, in the valley of the W. Bug)
* Murom-Ryazan (lower Oka)
* Galich
* Turov
* Polotsk

I will scan a map taken from Dimnik's The Dynasty of Chernigov, a map which is useful for these purposes and, once again, means you don't have to take me at my word. If you'd prefer me to open a new thread, I can do that too.

jordarkelf said:

Yes, it's possible to elevate duchies to kingdoms (or the other way around), but this 'locks' the title in that state for the entire scenario. If I make PERE king level, all it would mean is that the 'kingdom' of Pereyaslavl would be in the are the duchy is in now, so it'll essentially become an extremely easy king title.
The provinces of PERE will not have a real duchy.
There will also be some issues since the game will treat PERE as both a duchy and kingdom at the same time.
In the other scenarios I have never used the tactic on a recreatable title -- Bosnia and Cyprus in 1337 are true kingdom titles, as is Thessalonica in 1204, not just upgraded duchies.

One huge advantage of using a nonrecreatable tag for these kingdoms is that they disappear for good once lost, and can't be simply recreated, claimed, or usurped (although the tourney events can still get the player or AI a claim on them).

Click to expand...

OK, you know more about the game-side effects than I. The one thing I'd say is that if you make the duchy large enough by, say, expanding its recreatable area to near its historic scope, it's no longer an easy kingdom tag. So, for instance, the Duke of Moscow (nonrecreatable title) is Duke-King of Vladimir with the Duke of Tver (non-recreatable) as a vassal. Like I said, I can see the gameplay issues of this myself ... but it is another way of doing it.

Adding Kiev and Vladimir as non-recreatable kingdom tags would, in both cases, mean doubling up on existing duchies. There can be ways round this, of course.

BTW, the wiki article has basic info that you may find useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir-Suzdal

Here is a map for you btw:

jordarkelf said:

From wiki: 'Vladimir-Suzdal Rus was a principality which succeeded Kievan Rus as the most powerful Rus' state in the late 12th century and lasted until the late 14th century.'

Sounds to me like this is a justification for making it simply Rus, using the king tag... and representing everything else as 'normal' principalities.

In 1066 this would have been held by Kiev, but afaik in 1066 Kiev had lost most of its authority over the other principalities, which is why it isn't Rus then.

Click to expand...

That is one view, though I'd venture to say some would say this view is perpetrated because of early modern Tsarist pro-Muscovite historiography. I think both those who would like Rus in the game and those who wouldn't can both agree that either scenario does not simulate good historical gameplay. You either get too powerful (Rus King in game) or too weak (present, where 2 times out of three Rus gets overrun by pagans). The current situation is bad, but you certainly wouldn't want the King of Rus in Vladimir bloating on scutage from the princes of Galich, Polotsk and Chernigov.

I can present more details on the 1187 set-up and you can think about it.

Well, Veld’s TASS has Novgorod, Galich and “Russia” (more like Muscovy) as creatable kingdoms, which is not a bad idea IMO, perhaps not very accurate historically, but still.

In the 14th century, when Rus' was divided between the the Moscow/Tver run Vladimir principality and the Lithuanian empire, the Byzantines distinguished them as "Great Russia" (Gr. Μακρά Ρωσία or Μεγάλα Ρωσία, Makra Rosia/ Megala Rosia; Russian Великоро́ссия, Velikorossiya) and "Little Russian" (Gr. Μικρά Ρωσία (Russian Малоро́ссия, Malorossiya). So that's a possibility ...

Implementing that, you could be looking at something like this:

And this is the place for me to enter and suggest adding Kingdom fo Volga Bulgaria not as Duchy-level as it is now and probably even a recreatable one.

As for the 1204 scenario, the balkan charachters are utterly messed up as serbians and bulgarians are all croatian. The charachters that is not the province cultures themselves. And probably the latin empire can do with less land in asia minor, to compensate for the impossible proper represantatino of their lands in the balkans? The greeks have to have a chance at least imho

Decided to try DVIP out.

Seems quite stable and its enjoyable. Good-O.

However, some things are starting to rankle a bit:

1) The 'childs skills are deteriorating' event. DV has a higher skill base than CK alone and so I can see the point of this event. However, having it fire no less than 3 times for several children (at minimum 2 per child) is a bit aggravating. Having a prodigy getting this event 3 times in 3 months especially. The final straw was when my 17 year old Spymistress, married, pregnant and with a nice spy skill (not an education) received this event twice! She isn't a child anymore! Leave her alone!

2) I see you are using The Phoenix's education set? (or a version thereof). One set of events here annoys me: The ones where a child decides to swap education from one to another. Virtually all my children in the court got it and they are all dithering, weak-willed, stressed out numpties with negative pieties and prestige.

3) One of the education events (court I think) has an 'Unknown String Wanted' title.

4) Change the title from 'a child starts his education' to 'a child starts their education' to make it gender neutral.

Apart from these. Very good mod.

Ayeshteni

1337 scenario

OK, so I reviewed Scotland in the 1337 scenario, and it requires a great deal of change. Here are by thoughts:

Lothian (Scots)

Ruled by the king, and should probably stay that way.

Buchan (Probably Scots)
The count in the game, de Beaumont, was a claimant only. Buchan moreover was destroyed as a territorial lordship and the title "Earl of Buchan" as used later in the century is purely honorary. Should probably go to the King, or to Robert Stewart as something he can dish out to his sons.

Galloway (Gaelic)
* The ruler is given as William Douglas, son of Archibald Douglas. This is not accurate. No Douglas held any land in Galloway. The Lord of Galloway was the king, but the kindreds of Galloway had a traditional allegience to the Balliol, the "rightful" king of the province. The chief kindreds of the province in the period were the MacCans, MacCullochs, MacLellans and, chiefly, the MacDoualls (MacDowells). They were not loyal to the Bruce house, whose home province of Carrick was frequently attacked, and they were loyal to Balliol and "the English" in 1338. The MacDoualls were however more loyal (eventually at least), and the latter are usually the ones mentioned when something happens in the province,

So I'd say the ruler of Galloway should be either Dungal MacDouall or Fergus MacDouall. One is the leader during the later days of Robert I, the other during the mid reign of David II. I dunno which one was in charge in 1338. I'd need to check further to see if there is any record. At any rate, the Scots attacked the province throughout the century, David carved up Galloway in name (though not in practice) by making one of his knights, Malcolm Fleming, "Earl of Wigtown" in 1341, and Archibald the Grim conquered Galloway in the years after 1364, being appointed "Lord of Galloway" as a result in 1369.

Carrick (Gaelic)
*The ruler given for is Eleanor Douglas, sister of William Douglas. Carrick doesn't have a count in 1338. It is the royal earldom, though it's appointees after Edward Bruce do not seem to go anywhere near it. It's real ruler in the "kenkynnol" (ceann cinneil, "head of kindred"), the Kennedy family, whose formal offices later in the century included "ballie of Carrick", "keeper of Loch Doune Castle" and "Steward of Carrick". They were the actual rulers, and so should be favoured in lack of a real count. The ruler would be, I think, "John Kennedy" (Eóin Ceanadach). The other possibility of course is the king.

Royal demesne
In 1338, the king was not in Scotland and in his absence and because of Robert I's generousness, he returned to have almost no land. I'd suggest the king have only Lothian, or at worst, Lothian and Buchan. See below.

Atholl (Gaelic)
In the king's absence, Robert Stewart controlled (not as Earl) Atholl, Strathearn and royal demesne north of the Forth. As he got recognition with the title "lord of the earldom of Atholl" in 1341, on the king's return, I don't think there can be any objection to giving him Atholl.

Another suggestion is to also make him "Duke of Albany" so that the other lords north of the Forth but south of Moray can be his vassals, and effectively rule Scotland in David's absence.

Strathclyde (Scots)
Strathclyde is run between the Stewart family and the DOuglases. Because the Stewarts are being empowered elsewhere, this can go to William DOuglas, representing Douglas lordships in Clydesdale.


Angus (Scots)
This is accurate, though almost no territory in Angus was ruled by the earl of Angus, but either by the king, a varieties of Scots-speaking barons in the east and Clan Donnachie (Clann Donnchaidh) in the west.

Mar (Gaelic)
Ruler is accurate.

Fife (Probably Scots)
Ruler is accurate.

Sutherland (Gaelic)
Ruler is given as "William of Strathbogie", which is utterly ludicrous. This is the Balliol claimant to the earldom of Atholl, who had nothing to do with Sutherland. The ruler was Uilleam, son of Cinaodh, who was married to a daughter of Robert I.

Caithness and Orkney
It's given as Malise (Maol Iosa), the forfeited mormaer of Strathearn. He is a vassal of Norway, which is awkward. Caithness was part of Scotland, Orkney part of Norway, the ruler thus being legal vassal to both. However, since the reign of David I the ruler of Orkney-Caithness was (on and off) a de facto vassal of the Scottish king, not Norway. Because Maol Iosa was an enemy of the crown for much of this period (he wanted Strathearn, his ancient province, back), it would be best to make him independent.

Western Isles (Gaelic)
No basic problems.

Moray (Gaelic)
Fine, though the earl's actual power in the province is questionable.

Argyll (Gaelic)
The ruler given is Colin Campbell (Cailean Caimbeul), which is anachronistic. The actual ruler was Eóin Gallda, otherwise known as "John MacDougall", "John of Argyll" and "John of Lorne", though it is true that the Campbells had a foothold in the province.

Ross (Gaelic)
Correct.

Man (Gaelic)
The ruler given is Richard de Mandeville. It had not direct suzerain between 1333 and 1399, but the ruler in 1338 was William Montague, earl of Salisbury. The earl of Moray should have a claim to the island.

BTW, would there be any objection to using "Scots" rather than "Scottish" as the cultural name? It's still anachronistic and misleading, but at least is potentially referencing the Scots English language, which "Scottish" doesn't.