-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
So you can start opening threads according to the topic that should preferably be discussed there.I just did.
Only administrators can create new subforums, sadly. That's why the AGCEEP on WATKABAOI project had to reuse the WATKABAOI forum.
Like this:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...-Years-War&p=13156831&viewfull=1#post13156831
I suggested to have Normandy start 1419 as looted in AGCEEP.
I would rather wait for Garbon's confirmation that he will help us with that. Then I think we can open at least one other thread for Italian matters and keep this one for more general stuff. Then we will see.
Ok, I guess I just have to PM Castellon now. :ninja:
I am for using different threads labelled "DoK". As it is now we have this general subforum completely for us, for Garbon's mods and for MyMap PL.
I'd hold off until you hear something from P'dox. I don't know if they'd take issue with a mod devolving into several threads in the general modding forum.Ok, I guess I just have to PM Castellon now. :ninja:
Also, as I discovered with Therion, splitting up original threads isn't really that fun. Post ID #'s change when earlier posts are deleted out (/even if you work from the back end it takes forever to untangle).
That's only because we currently don't have many people working on independent mods.
According to the topics in the thread, we would need four threads only: 1- general setup about scenarios and mod updates; 2- mod issues such as techs, goods, religions, HRE; 3- bugfixing; 4- discussions and submissions of events.
But it's of course Third Angel to give hints according to what is most needed for his mod.
I do not really like the idea of having FRL in 888. Another solution could be to push back the arrival of Wido and tweak the dates of the events so that ITA is vassalized by GER just before SPL dows. This way, ITA's alliances will be broken and it will have to fight SPL on its own.
I think ITA should have cores on FRL provinces when it is ruled by Berengar. About him not getting the rest of the cores in 888, I will easily concede that this is arguable since he had been officially crowned, but it was also done to make him weaker when he faces Wido because I vaguely recalled that cores had something to do with manpower. That could be useless now because thanks to your changes, Wido almost always seize Italy quite easily.
No, I do not think NAP should be allied with THU in 888. They allied with SLO to eliminate the Arab encampment near their city around 882-3. Most of the survivors were to be found amongst the first settlers at the Mouths of the Garigliano River, with the benediction of GTA by the way. Later on, NAP seems to have had ambiguous attitudes again towards Muslim bands roaming in Campania. They did not mind them as long as they preyed on their neighbours. GTA who supported the Garigliano Arabs against the attack of 902/3, and AMI who was largely engaged in trade with many Muslim ports were no different.
Like I said in an earlier post about religions, those were different times and the attitude of South Italian principalities, or Iberian ones for that matter, towards Muslims was often shifting and very pragmatic, and it never had this smell of Holy War that was to emerge in the course of the eleventh century with the reconquest in Iberia and Sicily, and then the Crusades. Christians and Muslims could collaborate occasionally but I do not think that these temporary convergences of interests may be called an alliance in EU2/FTG terms.
How about giving them only a casusbelli core in 888 as we are just talking of one small city in a whole province. Taormina only fell in 902 if I recall correctly, so the CB core could be removed if BYZ does not take it back before that date.
Then they may get claim cores when they make real plans to actually reconquer the island during the tenth century, I cannot remember when exactly.
The best I could find was Google books as I do not own anything about North Africa. That is why, as you could see, the THU/FAT sequence is quite sketchy for now.
You mean GER_205031 before FRA_198000? Yes, it should definitely.
Some curious facts, ITA_228003 most of cases goes for action B!
Ok.
Yes, Garigiano Arabs against Capua. One of the planned chain of events.
Ok.
Yes a CB core from start then, until an event about the fall of Taormina with the 10 years control trigger. But if BYZ reconquers it, should we change the core in a triggered event for BYZ?
Ok. I have some info about Arabic Sicily, Ibrahim II (THU monarch) and Al Mahdi (FAT monarch Ubayd Allah). Not much about the struggle between the Fatimids and the Aghlabids. I'll see what I can do for some description in event THU_368000 and following. This event deals with preach liberty, humm... book and sword?
(I see that scimitar came with the Crusades...)
I will implement your cities' positions changes.
As to the Capuan port, like I said the map as it is now is largely cool-toxic's responsability. Personnally, I am all for removing as many ports as we can as my impression is that navies had much less importance than in 1419-1819.
Perhaps then move the
blockade = yes
entry in naval.txt to a later techlevel, e.g. naval level 1 too.
Successfully blockading a port with "a band of war canoes as a naval level 0 pagan african" should not be feasible.
Yes, I agree with it. Apart from the historical coastal countries. IMO Capua isn't a coastal country.
Other ports, such as Ancona, should stay then.
EDIT: In Pentapolis, the port of Ancona is wrongly displayed. From the Greek: Ancon -> Elbow
Last edited:
@ Third Angel
Why have you used the name of Tunisia for the Aghlabids instead of "Ifriquiya"? It seems to be more appropriate.
What's the evolution of the Fatimid country once they inherit THU? Do they stay as FAT or become THU? Which relation with Egypt?
I have also seen a potential bug in country.txt where THU is for Thuringia.
Why have you used the name of Tunisia for the Aghlabids instead of "Ifriquiya"? It seems to be more appropriate.
What's the evolution of the Fatimid country once they inherit THU? Do they stay as FAT or become THU? Which relation with Egypt?
I have also seen a potential bug in country.txt where THU is for Thuringia.
About the events in post #243, first of all in BYZ_154005, obviously:
should read:
Then, I am not sure why you have finally removed BYZ_154000 C when we had agreed on 5 badboy for it. I think it could be 2 for action B by the way.
In my opinion, we should keep only the claim core on Samnium in 888. It should be removed in BYZ_154006 and BYZ_154000 A. The other two claim cores on Salernum and Capua should be added only in BYZ_154000 C like you had in your first draft. Maybe they could be added on other occasions but I do not know yet if they ever made a real attempt towards these two cities. In BYZ_154000 C, it could still be seen as plausible that if they made a real effort to keep Benevento they would likely think of restoring their rule over the whole of South Italy.
Code:
command = { type = war which = BYZ }
Code:
command = { type = war which = BEN }Then, I am not sure why you have finally removed BYZ_154000 C when we had agreed on 5 badboy for it. I think it could be 2 for action B by the way.
In my opinion, we should keep only the claim core on Samnium in 888. It should be removed in BYZ_154006 and BYZ_154000 A. The other two claim cores on Salernum and Capua should be added only in BYZ_154000 C like you had in your first draft. Maybe they could be added on other occasions but I do not know yet if they ever made a real attempt towards these two cities. In BYZ_154000 C, it could still be seen as plausible that if they made a real effort to keep Benevento they would likely think of restoring their rule over the whole of South Italy.
Last edited:
I am still working on the NAP-BEN-BYZ war issue so I am not sure I will need it now, but it may be useful later so thanks anyway.
Yes, I will do that, maybe even to a later tech.
Ok, thanks. IN the first draft it was a BEN event and I din't change the tag reference.
I have removed it because you said about giving BYZ the cores on Capua and Salerno already from the beginning. So action C wasn't that sensible. Ok, for 2 BB in action B.
You mean to remove it in 154005 B and not 154006, I believe. And 154000 A? Why? That was you previous event and I didn't change that setup. Would then BYZ renounce to it forever or wait for Leo VI to die? Then why not an action D with cores on Naples, Amalfi and Gaeta too until 912, that is when Leo VI dies? Maybe too far away from historical path?
In case you think we should remove the cores on Capua and Salerno from the beginning, then I'll going to repost my action C. I have unfortunately removed it from my backup files.
I think it was 5 BB points, 2 revolts in Benevento and the cores on Capua and Salernum and I believe a -100 relation between BYZ and the three Italian principalities. The action name was "Let's reconquer Southern Italy piece by piece...", I seem to remember.
EDIT: I would also improve the description of CPA_386000 about the attempt to conquer Apulia from Byzantium, also adding a claim or CB core on Apulia in action A. But I need to look at this thing better.
Last edited:
It could be. I am trying to stick with modern names, would you have a more modern spelling maybe?
I am not sure, FAT should definately become THU once it seizes Kairouan but I cannot recall if this has been scripted, if it has then it does not work anyway so feel free to have a look at it if you come upon a decent source.
There is no country.txt that I am aware of and both countries.txt and countries.csv look fine to me. :huh:
Last edited:
I know I have it somewhere, I will find it and post it tomorrow.
I need to think more about your latest suggestions, also I have to find if BYZ made any serious determined attempt against the Lombard principalities after 895.