(MOD) 399 a.d.

[videonfan]

How does one get the decision to invade britain as the saxons?
oh and btw the caliphate needs to get cores on arabia once formed and easier conversion of cultures in middle east and egypt expect persia
and all roman cultures should dissapear once rome dissapears and constantinople becomes byzantine

[AKronblad]

How does one get the decision to invade britain as the saxons?
oh and btw the caliphate needs to get cores on arabia once formed and easier conversion of cultures in middle east and egypt expect persia
and all roman cultures should dissapear once rome dissapears and constantinople becomes byzantine

Hi there and thanks for suggestions.

Invasion occurs as an event, but could maybe be changed to a decision. Will look at that.

You mean cores in its own provinces (which it does I believe) or throughout the Arabian peninsula?

I honestly don't think the Muslim conquests introduced Arab culture that quickly. Religion is a different matter.

I remove Italo-Roman immediately only to ensure that Roma never shows up again, but the other Roman culture will disappear only gradually, as their influences persisted for a number of years even after Roma disappeared.

[videonfan]

In the newest version i see the angles have a decision "Invade Brittania" and you need to have flag "question_invade_britannia"
For the Caliphate i mean it needs cores throughout the arabian peninsula once formed
And it needs to get cores from its missions to capture north africa mauritania and persia
oh and for the cultures they could be like this :
Egypt(if owned by arabs)=Egyptian Arabs
Syria = Al Syriah Arabic
Iraq = Al Iraqya Arabic
North Africa = Berber
Arabian Peninsula = Arabian
Oh and i started in 571 and now its like 691 and ive seen something like west slavs and south slavs
West slavs captured all of europe(expect iberia which is mine)
malta should go to european continent instead of african me thinks
There should exist no orthodox religion at start;only a christian one with its heresies(nestorianism,monophysite etc.)and though event in the schism various nations can choose if they want to go catholic or orthodox
And there should be no decision to go to the other religion for these nations

Nations that are neighbours of the caliphate should get an event if they have good relations with it to convert to sunni
There needs an event for the spread of shiitism in random provinces each time
and i got once catholic missionaries spread catholicism in north africa even through as the caliphate i owned it

[videonfan]

Sorry for double posting but as you can see i took the liberty to change the colour and flag of the caliphate(ummayad flag from steppe wolf and abbassid colour from steppe wolf)

Also the western behemoths:

[AKronblad]

Thanks for suggestions. I will consider some of them, although not top priority right now, since I will soon focus on China.

Slavs will be split up into smaller countries reaching a certain size.
Orthodox is original christianity in this mod.
Yes, shiite will be introduced.
thanks for pointing out catholicism spread into Islam: should not occur.

[Micro]

In the newest version i see the angles have a decision "Invade Brittania" and you need to have flag "question_invade_britannia"
For the Caliphate i mean it needs cores throughout the arabian peninsula once formed
And it needs to get cores from its missions to capture north africa mauritania and persia
oh and for the cultures they could be like this :
Egypt(if owned by arabs)=Egyptian Arabs
Syria = Al Syriah Arabic
Iraq = Al Iraqya Arabic
North Africa = Berber
Arabian Peninsula = Arabian
Oh and i started in 571 and now its like 691 and ive seen something like west slavs and south slavs
West slavs captured all of europe(expect iberia which is mine)
malta should go to european continent instead of african me thinks
There should exist no orthodox religion at start;only a christian one with its heresies(nestorianism,monophysite etc.)and though event in the schism various nations can choose if they want to go catholic or orthodox
And there should be no decision to go to the other religion for these nations

Nations that are neighbours of the caliphate should get an event if they have good relations with it to convert to sunni
There needs an event for the spread of shiitism in random provinces each time
and i got once catholic missionaries spread catholicism in north africa even through as the caliphate i owned it

I guess there is no point in starting in 571 since the mod has no history after 399 in the history files.
However, I agree that Malta should be included in Europe, not Africa.

[videonfan]

I started in 571 because the decision to form the caliphate can happen only after 570 and i couldn't wait that long :P

[AKronblad]

Hi there. Have now published a new version, 0.9.2.7.. Among other things, introducing shiite (at death of Muhammad), correcting the christianity spread so that it cannot convert muslim provinces, and rebalancing the Merovingian heritage rules after Clovis' death so that it is hopefully not so fully disadvantageous for Francia (ideally just a small limitation...).

Anyway, download link in first post as usual.

[Kyoumen]

Those size penalties are excessive. Persia is basically unplayable; they can barely afford even their starting military, their navy is promptly over the limit and has to be disbanded or defunded despite being miniscule. Sassanid Persia should be only slightly less powerful (and arguably should be flat-out equal) to the ERE, but it can barely even afford to garrison itself due to the size penalties.

The death of Attila event seems buggy, since it puts even your vassals in separate wars with the hun remnant state and also gives you the "throw off the hunnic yoke" event (and for some reason -5 stability, which takes probably a decade and a half to pay off given the massive penalties and crippled income) even when you've never been at war with the huns.

[AKronblad]

Those size penalties are excessive. Persia is basically unplayable; they can barely afford even their starting military, their navy is promptly over the limit and has to be disbanded or defunded despite being miniscule. Sassanid Persia should be only slightly less powerful (and arguably should be flat-out equal) to the ERE, but it can barely even afford to garrison itself due to the size penalties..

Yes, achieving the right balancing is extremely difficult, not only for Persia. But the above is strange, since in most or all of my watch-throughs (399-750 or 821 even) Persia TENDS to prosper and expand, even to the extent that I am considering some late-game events to reduce their strength.. But maybe you play much worse than the AI? Or were just unlucky? Anyway, which specific suggestions do you have to achieve a better balance, not only for Persia but for the large countries in general?

The death of Attila event seems buggy, since it puts even your vassals in separate wars with the hun remnant state and also gives you the "throw off the hunnic yoke" event (and for some reason -5 stability, which takes probably a decade and a half to pay off given the massive penalties and crippled income) even when you've never been at war with the huns.

This is not a bug, it is intentional to reflect (and game wise "ungently" steer in the direction of) the Huns disappearing from the stage after Attila. The vassals historically took the opportunity to "throw off the Hunnic yoke" after Attila's death (even one of his most trusted companions) and in the game don't differentiate between Attila's heir and his brothers, they're all Huns to them, so if they declare war on White and Black Huns then it's because of that. And the neighbours declaring wars are interpreted as taking advantage of the chaos upon Attila's death. Having said this, do you by -5 stability mean that vassals and neighbours get it? That is not the idea, so then I will have to have a closer look and adjust it. But all in all, these events and penalties for the Huns are there to inverse the previous success prior to and during Attila.

[AKronblad]

Version 0.9.3 released. See first post of this thread. But introduces a number of new countries showing up during game play.

[Kyoumen]

Yes, achieving the right balancing is extremely difficult, not only for Persia. But the above is strange, since in most or all of my watch-throughs (399-750 or 821 even) Persia TENDS to prosper and expand, even to the extent that I am considering some late-game events to reduce their strength.. But maybe you play much worse than the AI? Or were just unlucky? Anyway, which specific suggestions do you have to achieve a better balance, not only for Persia but for the large countries in general?

I wouldn't say I normally play much worse than the AI... I would guess, observing the other large AI countries in the game, that AI Persia does alright due to minting like crazy to afford its forcelimit, but that of course causes long-term problems.

But you can see for yourself by starting a game with them. Once the size penalties hit you will be unable to afford building your army to even your reduced forcelimit and your tiny starting navy goes over the forcelimit. If you manage to recapture some of your cores, it'll get even worse, since you'll hit the huge size penalties and be actually worse off than before. You'll be able to squeeze out a small profit if you keep your army below the forcelimit and grab a gold province or two, which is not really reflective of the realities of Sassanid Persia (which was abundantly rich until they blew it all on endless war with the Romans). As is, due to the increased travel times (which is reasonable enough), it's very difficult to conduct any sort of warfare regardless of opposition, since the size penalties make rebellions break out on a monthly basis and you have to keep a small army at every corner of the empire to stamp them out, leaving no spare armies or money to go abroad unless you want to risk successful rebellions. I'd actually have freed some vassals to get down below huge if I could, but Persia doesn't have anyone significant to free.

Now, a lot of constraint on large empires isn't a bad thing. Actually I applaud you for being about the first person ever to make a mod for a Paradox game where huge empires are actually vulnerable to upstart powers and have a tendancy to break up (watching Rome explode and the Huns crush Byzantium was quite entertaining, even as I was frantically bribing Attila so he'd attack everyone-else-first). But constant rebellions and an inability to pay for even your lowered forcelimit without skirting bankruptcy or minting is a bit too much; a peaceful empire the size of Persia (or the ERE) should be stronger than that. Most to the point, constant rebellions for the whole game (and there's really no way to avoid them with the large or huge empire penalties, no matter what you do) is just unfun to play.

If I were to suggest, I'd say large empires should be able to reduce their penalties by granting autonomy and decentralising, represented by such things as Persian satrapies and the Roman provincial (and later thematic) system. Probably doing so would reduce tax income (probably to the same level as the current penalties), but reduce or eliminate the revolt and forcelimit penalties. However, decentralised empires should have, as balance, events that, if a nationalist or patriotic rebellion takes a province, greatly raise the chance of other nationalist or patriot rebellions rising, to reflect the fact they tended to have pieces break off in times of stress.

That way you have a choice with a large empire:

- Keep your centralised state and high tax income, but deal with constant unrest, somewhat lower forcelimits and rebellions that you can't get rid of, as now but with more money.

- Decentralise your empire, reducing your overall tax income, but alleviating your revolt issues to manageable levels and raising your forcelimit, with the ongoing risk that getting into trouble will cause portions to break away from your empire very quickly.

- Rely on minting and keep a large enough army to swat rebels while still campaigning and high income (perfect for a powerful conquering king), but setting yourself up for big problems down the line as inflation rises.

I think that actually reflects pretty well the broad ways various large empires tried to keep everything together, historically. And decentralised empires will be a lot more fun to play (due to lack of constant revolts and ability to actually build an army or navy), but still won't be as powerful as vanilla since they'll have lower income from their provinces and prone to explode when they get into serious trouble (they might even get revolt events with any low-administration rulers, if more balancing is needed).

This is not a bug, it is intentional to reflect (and game wise "ungently" steer in the direction of) the Huns disappearing from the stage after Attila. The vassals historically took the opportunity to "throw off the Hunnic yoke" after Attila's death (even one of his most trusted companions) and in the game don't differentiate between Attila's heir and his brothers, they're all Huns to them, so if they declare war on White and Black Huns then it's because of that. And the neighbours declaring wars are interpreted as taking advantage of the chaos upon Attila's death. Having said this, do you by -5 stability mean that vassals and neighbours get it? That is not the idea, so then I will have to have a closer look and adjust it. But all in all, these events and penalties for the Huns are there to inverse the previous success prior to and during Attila.

That part's fine, my point was that I (as Persia) was automatically put into a war to throw off the hunnic yoke (despite never having been at war with them and having good relations with them; the war also started BEFORE I made the choice in the event, making the "stick with our Hun buddies!" choice pointless), but so were my vassals (such as Armenia) who had also never been at war with them, but were then placed in a separate war I wasn't involved with. It seems odd, but may be WAD. That being said, I did take a -5 stab hit (absolutely crippling given how tight finances are and how long stab takes to recover, plus revolts suddenly breaking out everywhere in Persia about once per week), which presumably isn't supposed to happen just because you neighboured Attila.

Edit: Ah yes, and as an unrelated random suggestion, it would be nifty if Zoroastrian countries were able to promote Zoroastrianism in the same way Christian countries later can in other courts; historically, the Sassanids aggressively promoted the spread of Zoroastrianism (or Zurvanism, to be precise) with some success before it withered after the Muslim invasions; Zoroastrian fire temples were found as far as Western China. If you want to keep it in a reasonably historical direction, you might limit it to only be able to be promoted in pagan or east asian provinces.

I'd also suggest giving Islamic countries the same ability, as Islam spread to southeast Asia by trade, but as I haven't reached that far in the game it might be unnecessary depending on how the spreading events currently work.

[AKronblad]

Hi there.

Ok, I will try it out as Persia too to see what happens. I like your decentralisation vs. centralisation ideas, and maybe could give "huge" countries a more expanded ability to adjust that slider. (Just thinking out loud.) Simplistically, what you basically are suggesting is a less penalising system, force_limit wise, that also allows the player to choose between lower income / lower rebel risk and higher income / increased rebel risk, right? Let me see what can be done without making the larger countries far too powerful again.

Another thing I am looking at implementing is the release satrapies (Arabestan, Khwarzem, Khorasan, Mazun, Arran, Sindh) as vassals to avoid that problem (much like Roma). Much of my focus so far has been on the West and the Germanics.

Regarding Huns: agree, automatic war should not really apply for players or players' vassals: will change. And now understand the -5: must be due to not having a CB, right?

Anyway, thanks for elaborated feedback: highly useful. (I also appreciate I couldn't find one single "should" in there.... But then, you are English native speaking? )

[XVG]

I just noticed a small bug. The tags of both Austrasia and (vanilla) Astrakhan are AST. This results in Austrasia having muslim graphical culture and names.

[AKronblad]

I just noticed a small bug. The tags of both Austrasia and (vanilla) Astrakhan are AST. This results in Austrasia having muslim graphical culture and names.

Many thanks, XVG: thorough as always!

Have fixed this for next update: Had missed to add # before the Astrakhan AST in the common/countries.txt, but hopefully will work after this change. (although there be many many more of these... ).

[XVG]

BTW. How about making a decision where you can unite the Briton Kingdoms into Prydein and the Pictic ones into Picts if you control all the provinces in the respective regions?

[AKronblad]

BTW. How about making a decision where you can unite the Briton Kingdoms into Prydein and the Pictic ones into Picts if you control all the provinces in the respective regions?

Good ideas, will implement. Just don't want it to be available too early since I like to have the infighting in Britannia for as long as possible... 550AD for Prydein and 600AD for Picts?

[AKronblad]

I am happy to announce that version 0.9.3.1 is now released and available for download through link in first post of this thread. Changes include:

NEW in 0.9.3.1:
Two new countries: Arabestan and Mazun, primarily acting as Persian satrapies that could be released as vassals.
Persia can release vassals through decision: Arabestan, Mazun, Arran, Sindh, Khwarzem, and Khorasan.
Large (31+ provinces => 1 notch) and huge (41+ provinces => 1 or 2 notches) countries can adjust centralisation_decentralisation slider through decision.
Less severe size penalty: force limit and revolt risk penalties reduced. (Interesting to see how balancing is affected... )
Zoroastrianist, Buddhist, and Sunni countries can make spy missions to convert foreign provinces and countries. (to be further refined, based on dominating_religion trigger).
Death of Attila event only prevents the following countries from declaring war on Huns through event: player, vassals other than Huns', no casus belli, junior partner in union.

[Kyoumen]

One problem that you might want to hotfix is that the Persian satrapies don't actually get any cores, and thus can't raise troops. Also, for some reason Persia doesn't lose their cores in Sindh (I beat Gupta in their day 1 war and took said cores, then freed Sindh, but kept my own cores for some reason). Freeing satrapies possibly should also lower infamy, just as freeing vassals normally? A straight -5 or so would seem fine. One other issue is that Khwarazem's culture doesn't exist in its lands (it's in the uncolonised lands north of them); maybe any freed "Persian ethnic" satrapy (i.e., not Arabestan) should get a free culture-flip of their capital.

Is there any way for vassals to convert to the parent religion, particularly if it's dominant in their lands? I got both of Armenia's provinces to flip to Zoroastrian but they didn't convert themselves.

Edit: I notice you did do an event that ought to make those countries get cores, but it only works if the country freed itself rather than being released, as far as I can see.

[AKronblad]

One problem that you might want to hotfix is that the Persian satrapies don't actually get any cores, and thus can't raise troops. Also, for some reason Persia doesn't lose their cores in Sindh (I beat Gupta in their day 1 war and took said cores, then freed Sindh, but kept my own cores for some reason). Freeing satrapies possibly should also lower infamy, just as freeing vassals normally? A straight -5 or so would seem fine. One other issue is that Khwarazem's culture doesn't exist in its lands (it's in the uncolonised lands north of them); maybe any freed "Persian ethnic" satrapy (i.e., not Arabestan) should get a free culture-flip of their capital.

Is there any way for vassals to convert to the parent religion, particularly if it's dominant in their lands? I got both of Armenia's provinces to flip to Zoroastrian but they didn't convert themselves.

Edit: I notice you did do an event that ought to make those countries get cores, but it only works if the country freed itself rather than being released, as far as I can see.

Many thanks for quick feedback. Yes, this was a quick fix late last night to get the vassals introduced.

So will fix cores (adding as well as removing, but strange about Sindhi...)
Good idea about infamy.
Khwarezm culture is intentional (has other purpose later) and may either keep as is, add chorasmian or introduce new satrapy (name suggestions?).
Have plans to make automatic conversion of country possible if majority of provinces is certain religion: have asked around about dominating_religion trigger and will try it out because it's an elegant way of converting countries. Meanwhile, you there is a "preach at court" event, which (very expensively and unlikely) could convert a whole country (if a vassal or sufficient relations). Should be there for orthodox, catholic, sunni, buddhism, and zoroastrianism...

Also: how did balancing work out now? Did you try the change autonomy decisions?