[DoK] Italy

[Bordic]

Bordic, the events of posts #34 to #37 all look good, I will implement them. I have only one question. I seem to remember that we talked about several more provinces that should get a +1 BTV, now only Capua gets it, why not the others?

I thought that Naples, Latium, Samnium and possibly Salernum have an already high BTV. Should we in case lower their starting BTV or is the increase not that unbalancing?

[Third Angel]

I think we agreed on Naples, Latium, Samnium, and Capua of course. I will lower their BTV in provinces.txt, possibly Gaeta too as it gets +1 from the Papal grant.

[Bordic]

I think we agreed on Naples, Latium, Samnium, and Capua of course. I will lower their BTV in provinces.txt, possibly Gaeta too as it gets +1 from the Papal grant.

Ok for these 5 provinces. But what in case the events for the BTV increase won't fire?
The 903 victory is ahistorical, so the BTV could be easily unmodified, and the historical victory of 915 would depend on BYZ and PAP decisions now.

[Bordic]

I have doubts about the sequence "forming the coalition" in post #36.

Shouldn't the events triggered by BYZ 154007 A (that is NAP, SLO and PAP) maybe be changed with their own start/death dates as to favourably check the "not at war with BYZ & CPA & PAP action trigger"? The time span could be between 0 jan 914 and 29 july 915.

In case, we wouldn't need trigger commands in 154007 A, just sleepevent commands in 154007 B and added triggers in NAP, SLO and PAP events instead of currently having them in action A of each event.

What do you think could be better for the sequence to work as expected?

Please, note that I have done some other minor tweaks in posts from #34 to #37. Reported in the edited bottom line of each concerned post.

[Third Angel]

Ok for these 5 provinces. But what in case the events for the BTV increase won't fire?
The 903 victory is ahistorical, so the BTV could be easily unmodified, and the historical victory of 915 would depend on BYZ and PAP decisions now.

I guess it will not happen very often that the victory events do not fire, and the concerned tags will have to live with it when it does.

I have doubts about the sequence "forming the coalition" in post #36.

Shouldn't the events triggered by BYZ 154007 A (that is NAP, SLO and PAP) maybe be changed with their own start/death dates as to favourably check the "not at war with BYZ & CPA & PAP action trigger"? The time span could be between 0 jan 914 and 29 july 915.

In case, we wouldn't need trigger commands in 154007 A, just sleepevent commands in 154007 B and added triggers in NAP, SLO and PAP events instead of currently having them in action A of each event.

What do you think could be better for the sequence to work as expected?

I think what you are suggesting here is better, the dates sound fine too and having them firing randomly after BYZ_154007 would better represent the Byzantine strategos successively visiting the various capitals to gain support.

I am sorry that this did not make it in 0.5 but I read your post too quickly and thought that you were proposing a major reworking of your events whereas actually, this could certainly have been finished in time.

[Bordic]

About Capua-Benevento, the more I think about it, the more I think it has been a mistake to handle it through vassalization. Yes, the co-rulers were nominally princes of Benevento, but de facto the two rulers always acted together as only one political entity between 900 and 981. So, I think one should inherit the other, but which one? We could even create a new tag, as they are now unlimited, for 'Capua-Benevento'. I know I did it for Castile-Leon.

What about CBE then or any other intuitive tag? In case do we need to duplicate CPA and CBE events when dealing with the Garigliano Arabs? And where should the capital city be, in Capua or in Benevento? It seems the Capuans as they conquered Benevento...

[Bordic]

I think what you are suggesting here is better, the dates sound fine too and having them firing randomly after BYZ_154007 would better represent the Byzantine strategos successively visiting the various capitals to gain support.

Ok, done then. Updated post #36.

I am sorry that this did not make it in 0.5 but I read your post too quickly and thought that you were proposing a major reworking of your events whereas actually, this could certainly have been finished in time.

Do you think we need to improve the sequence? I see a very short time span for alternative historical paths here.

[Third Angel]

What about CBE then or any other intuitive tag? In case do we need to duplicate CPA and CBE events when dealing with the Garigliano Arabs? And where should the capital city be, in Capua or in Benevento? It seems the Capuans as they conquered Benevento...

Capua should probably be the capital. At some point, twin events will have to be written, APA could be used as a tag, but I will not do it now. Like I said before, I intend to focus on the North African setup for 0.51, I will also work on Germany.

Ok, done then. Updated post #36.

Do you think we need to improve the sequence? I see a very short time span for alternative historical paths here.

No, I think the sequence is fine now and it should have been included in 0.5, it will definitely be in 0.51.

[Bordic]

I was thinking about the possibility to add some Italian leaders.

What about some Spoletans such as Alberico, the one of the battle of Garigliano or some Capuans or Beneventans like Landolfo?

And what does APA stand for?

[Third Angel]

I was thinking about the possibility to add some Italian leaders.

What about some Spoletans such as Alberico, the one of the battle of Garigliano or some Capuans or Beneventans like Landolfo?

Good idea, most monarchs should be leaders too in this era anyway. I just did not have the time to dot it.

And what does APA stand for?

It sounds like Capua, and I would rather keep the original tags whenever it is possible.

[Third Angel]

@Bordic, sorry for the long absence. Can you remember which posts of yours were ready for inclusion but could not make it in 0.5?

[Bordic]

@Bordic, sorry for the long absence. Can you remember which posts of yours were ready for inclusion but could not make it in 0.5?

Good to see you here again. :-)

As for now I can't check past posts. I'll see, asap.

[Bordic]

@Bordic, sorry for the long absence. Can you remember which posts of yours were ready for inclusion but could not make it in 0.5?

Posts 34-37, I think. Check your post #39.

EDIT: and posts 15-16 in North Africa thread!

[Third Angel]

Good, those will be added as soon as I come back home. And thanks for the reminder about the North-African ones, I had completely forgotten about them.

[Third Angel]

Bordic, I am in the process of implementing your older posts and there is a problem with BYZ_154007 in post #36.

        command = {
            trigger = { 
                owned = { province = 251 data = -1 } #Apulia
            } 
            type = INF which = 251 value = 2000 
            command = { type = galleys which = 251 value = 2 }
        }

        [...]

        command = {
            trigger = { 
                owned = { province = 247 data = -1 } #Bruttium
            } 
            type = INF which = 251 value = 2000
            command = { type = galleys which = 247 value = 3 }
 
        }

These commands will not work, I know it is annoying but you cannot have a trigger for a group of commands.

And of course you cannot have a command inside another command either, but you knew that already.

[Bordic]

Bordic, I am in the process of implementing your older posts and there is a problem with BYZ_154007 in post #36.

        command = {
            trigger = { 
                owned = { province = 251 data = -1 } #Apulia
            } 
            type = INF which = 251 value = 2000 
            command = { type = galleys which = 251 value = 2 }
        }

        [...]

        command = {
            trigger = { 
                owned = { province = 247 data = -1 } #Bruttium
            } 
            type = INF which = 251 value = 2000
            command = { type = galleys which = 247 value = 3 }
 
        }

These commands will not work, I know it is annoying but you cannot have a trigger for a group of commands.

And of course you cannot have a command inside another command either, but you knew that already.

Yes, sorry. Each command line giving galleys should then have its own trigger testing the ownership of each province.

[Third Angel]

I am not even sure the triggers are useful anyway, because troops and ships commands do not work in unowned provinces. I remember there was a request by a modder on the beta forum to change that but I seem to recall that it was not done in the end.

[Third Angel]

Posts 34-37, I think.

Ok, all these sequences have been added to the current events files, and the game loads fine after I fixed some numbering problems and a missing bracket in CPA_386007.

[Bordic]

...fixed some numbering problems and a missing bracket in CPA_386007.

Sorry, it happens when one is getting older...

[Third Angel]

Don't tell me about it, according to your profile I am only a year and a month younger than you, so we have the same problem here.

Still waiting to hear from you about the future sequences you mentioned, here or in the North African thread, Pornocracy, Aghlabid Sicily, Burgundians in Italy...