About the events in post #6.
First of all, what I believe is a typo, both actions in GTA_388000 have -50 in infra. Then, I would like to know the reason for the dates of this event, as the encampment was installed much sooner.
It's not a typo, I have forgotten to remove the command line from one action at least. The issue was if invoking the Saracens will bring part of the loot (that is why treasury is there) or less infra (their presence isn't good to GTA too) or both of them. In action B, where the Saracens aren't invoked, they will bring a reduced GTA influence on South Italy matters (-2 dip) and then instability or loss of infra. I need to balance both actions. Probably I'll go for removing it from action B.
About the encampment, I know that it was installed in 882, iirc. I wanted to create the sequence starting from GTA, instead of CPA. That is if GTA isn't supporting the Saracens, the sequence of the coalition won't fire and the Saracens of Gariglianto will be ahistorically defeated in 903 without any notice for a player. That's why CPA ask for a league in case GTA still supports the Saracens.
I think GTA was also approached but refused to join, which in the end caused the failure of the attack. Maybe we could have a GTA event, the same as AMI_112007 and co but with inversed actions. GTA picking action B would then result in the success of this first league and make the 914-5 one useless.
I thought that CPA only appoached NAP and AMI and not GTA because of her unreliability. In case of CPA starting the sequence, you are right, GTA will have the same event for NAP and AMI with reversed actions. Action B will sleep the following sequence(s): Capua inviting Bysantium and the Christian League.
Successful attacks, be it in 903 or 915 could maybe give a +1 in BTV for provinces that suffered mostly from the raids, maybe a trade boost, any other idea is welcome.
The BTV increase would mean that those provinces start with less BTV, wouldn't they?
In case, random events about Saracen attacks, about which we already talked in the general DOK thread, could be implemented now. Is your announced update of geography.txt ready?
Lastly, I believe that the Capuan call for Byzantine help is too early, especially when the help actually came ten years later. I will see what I can find about it tonight.
I have read that Capua called for Byzantium before 910 and it isn't related to the 914 league.
However if you talk about the dates I gave to the events, they aren't actually corresponding to historical facts. They are just for game play:
GTA event from late 902 to early 903, Capua event from early 903 to late 908 and Capua with Byzantium from early 904 to late 910.
They are intentionally to be fired earlier than the historical dates (respectively 903, 908 and 910) as they could represent the time necessary to make the arrangements... ;-)
In my sources (I am still waiting for Kreutz's book to come by courier...) I have three episodes:
903 - Capua isn't successful with the Saracens and then, in
908, the county forms an alliance with Naples and Amalfi, the alliance isn't that powerful, so Atenolfo of Capua asks for Emperor Leo VI's help in exchange of a assumed allegiance of Capua to the HRE. And that should be before 910, the year in which Atenolfo dies.
Then in 915, the other coalition will take place with the famous battle.
In a previous post you wrote:
Like I said above, it looks like John X had nothing to do with the planning. CPA, who had been trying several other attacks in the years following the 903 failure and who had been deserted by NAP and AMI, was looking for a new ally and embassies were exchanged with BYZ.
I think you are referring to the 908 league and not to the 915 league when you talk about NAP and AMI and then BYZ.
The Byzantine strategos coming to negotiate the AMI-NAP-GTA rallying to the league arrived in Italy very soon after John X had come to power, much too soon to believe that the new Pope had anything to do with it.
Also, Alberico was there indeed, leading Roman and Papal troops, but it sounds like Berengario's troops are a myth too. SLO was there too even though they did not suffer much from the raids, but they felt it would look bad diplomatically if they stayed out. About GTA, they do not seem to have participated actively, just not opposed the operation this time...
Afaik, it should be the 915 league by which AMI-NAP and GTA joined that league because of BYZ influence and that because GTA was probably promised the ducal title, which they took soon after. As you said, GTA could have remained neutral.
About Barengario, several sources (of mine...) report that, after the successful campaign against the Garigliano Saracens, he took the imperial title. So he should have joined that league in a way or another, even by letting his vassal, the Margrave of Spoleto, participate and lead troops. Maybe the troops were not proper Italians (in KoI sense of course) but Spoletans.