Deus Vult Improvement Pack - Discussion

[jordarkelf]

Not as intended
Will do.

 

[Rogan de Auria]

Leonese court:
*Pedro Ansurez ('Beni Gomez' dynasty)
-born: 1037
-stats & traits: chancellor lvl3. just, energic, selfish
-Friends: Alfonso of Leon (probably along with 'Urraca countess of Zamora' his best friend)
-Notes: a claim on 'Valladolid' would be nice... but I don't know how the AI manages the title granting.

Count Pedro Ansurez of Valladolid & his COA:

Im very intrigued and happy that Iberia is getting fleshed out!
I have been curious though and would like to know from Rogan de Auria as he has studied this.

hey, stop there! I have studied this... at school o
Don't think I'm an expert or something, it's only that I can read in the correct languages.
Either way I only looked at Galicia & Portugal in 1066, I'll try to recruit a Catalan in the Spanish sub-forum to take a look on 'Aragon' and 'Catalonia' they are very proud about their history and if I put my hand on it I'll probably die young...

Would it be appropriate to split the Jimanez family up to the de Navarra, de Leon, de Castilla, de Aragon, ect?

I have been doing this in my own scenarios since reading that Queen Urraca is described variously as Urraca de Castilla or Urraca de Leon.

Although it's more descriptive, in 1066 they are all from the same dynasty, even from the same family; they are uncles, cousins, brothers and the like. So, concerning game mechanics, it's not a good idea.

Urraca, like King Alfonso, are described as 'de Leon' or 'de Castilla' (de = of) because they hold both titles (King of Leon & King of Castille) with no particular order.

 

[Rogan de Auria]

I just realized that 'Pedro Ansurez' already exists in DV Vanilla!
he is count of Valladolid in 1066 WRONG and Sancho's vassal INCREDIBLY WRONG

I was looking superficially to the COUNTY of Barcelona and the setting is wrong too... things like 'Ramon Berenguer I' was lord of several important territories in France (like 'Carcassone') and that his sons 'Berenguer Ramon II & Ramon Berenguer II' were twins are not in the scenario...

But I should continue looking from left to right and start with those two Leonese counts. Still don't know who 'Ordonho of Braganza' is, or if he even existed at all...

I had some faith on Vanilla scenario but it's fading out.

ps: the 'Murcia' taifa should not be kingdom level

 

[jordarkelf]

Murcia is duchy level -- all taifas are. Mallorca (=Dénia) appears as kingdom level, but that's because I had to downgrade a kingdom tag for it, and the ruler is a saqaliba.

I knew about the French territories of Ramon Berenguer, but the CK map doesn't really allow this to be represented.

About Valladolid -- who was lord of it in 1066 then?

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

On the county of Valladolid see also this thread

 

[Rogan de Auria]

Murcia is duchy level -- all taifas are. Mallorca (=Dénia) appears as kingdom level, but that's because I had to downgrade a kingdom tag for it, and the ruler is a saqaliba.

you should use that kingdom tag for Garcia instead

About Valladolid -- who was lord of it in 1066 then?

not 'Ansurez' for sure, he went to exile with Alfonso in 1072 and only after this one returned as king of Castille he was granted Valladolid. Before that he was count in Palencia (IRL this lands are between Leon and Burgos) and emissary in the Taifas.
Even more important; I read that 'Pedro Ansurez' was responsible of the repopulation and latter growth of Valladolid (that's why he is so famous there) so the most probable answer is NO ONE.

I think it can be similar to the in-game province of 'Castelo Branco', it seems to be no mans land in 1066 (it's not Nuno's land for sure). EDIT the same is true for 'Salamanca'
maybe 'looted' can suit with that places, but I'm not very sure

 

[Rogan de Auria]

On the county of Valladolid see also this thread

very good links for research along that thread! I only knew two of them, they will be very usefull!

 

[Rogan de Auria]

Good news!
Asturias county seems to be ok except for little details.
Is much better to call the dynasty 'of Asturias' instead of 'of Leon' and the ages of the characters are not exact but they are rather good. note: the youngest daughter of this guy was IRL the future wife of 'El Cid'

'El Bierzo' county, or at least 'Astorga' and 'Ponferrada' -the more important villages on this region-, seems to be ruled by the 'Pelaez/Paez' family. This is the family of the 'Infantes de Carrión', the two brothers who wanted to marry 'El Cid' daughters. They are also part of the 'Beni Gomez' dynasty like 'Pedro Ansurez'.

 

[unmerged(83588)]

Wow.

A lot of work has gone into this baby. Let me get this straight - not only are you not being paid by Paradox to do this work... but you're actually paying them, by buying their games and expansions? I wish my staff were that nice!

I'd love to help out - Is there anything I can do? Any research?

A couple of suggestions:

1) The "bastard" trait has been used a few times to prevent ahistorical inheritances. It's been applied to characters who weren't IRL "bastards".

How about the "bastard" trait is renamed something like "disinherited". Not only would that make it a more flexible trait, but it makes it possible for someone to author interesting events. For example: If your king's son and heir is a heretic, you could be faced with the choice of disinheriting him or being excommunicated.

The only downside I can think of is that famous bastards, like William the Conquerer (what a bastard), wouldn't have "bastard" as a trait. But the description of the trait could say something like "This character cannot inherit titles. Perhaps they were conceived out of wedlock, or have simply fallen from favour."

2) When a child is receiving a parental upbringing, there should be the possibility that the child will become friends with their parents, if treated properly, and rivals with their parents if treated badly.

And then there are some suggestions I've made in other threads, and have been told they're not possible. I'll just raise them here one more time in case there's any way they could be implimented:

3) Increasing the number of wives a muslim character can take from one to four.

4) Renaming the titles of Saxon counts to "earls"

5) The "heretic" trait being divided into different sects. E.g. cathars, bogimils, paulicans, etc.

Again - let me know if there's anything I can help with!

Peace
Joe

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

1) The "bastard" trait has been used a few times to prevent ahistorical inheritances. It's been applied to characters who weren't IRL "bastards".

Can you name some examples to who this applies in the game ?

How about the "bastard" trait is renamed something like "disinherited". Not only would that make it a more flexible trait, but it makes it possible for someone to author interesting events

There are already a lot of interesting event-chains concerning bastards, those events would then be useless.

The only downside I can think of is that famous bastards, like William the Conquerer (what a bastard), wouldn't have "bastard" as a trait.

Another downside is that your rulers can't produce 'bastards' anymore, which means we are missing out a whole lot historical flavour

3) Increasing the number of wives a muslim character can take from one to four.

Isn't possible, and since you can't play muslims it is a rather useless modification

4) Renaming the titles of Saxon counts to "earls"

Can't be done. Titles are linked to religion (with exception of the Turks) not to culture

5) The "heretic" trait being divided into different sects. E.g. cathars, bogimils, paulicans, etc.

There are 3 user-definied tags available, but using them just for different heretic sects would be a waste IMHO.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Some suggestions for the 1187

England

Matilda Angevin
I know that Drachenfire likes Matilda (id 2991), Empress Maud, very much, but keeping her alive just because of that is nonsense. Matilda died in 1167. Her traits should be modified to, but since she is dead that is not really important. She is described as a greedy, domineering, abusive, headstrong, overbearing, tactless, haughty and arrogant.


Henry (II) Angevin
I think the stats for king Henry 'the old king' and his dead son, Henry 'the young king' are mixed. King Henry is described wilful, secretive, manipulative, volatile, crafty, slippery, vindictive, brooding, unforgiving (except against his sons), treachorous, cynical, mendacious, perjurious and nihilistic. He was also intelligent and pragmatic.

So I would make him like this

character = {
	id = { type = 10 id = 4500 }
	name = "Henry" # II
	gender = male
	dynasty = { type = 12 id =369 }
	father = { type = 10 id = 4506 }
	mother = { type = 10 id = 2991 }
	country = ENGL
	religion = catholic
	culture = english #Gameplay fix
	score = { gold = 100 prestige = 100 piety = 100 }
	birthdate = { year = 1133 month = may day = 3 }
	dna = "58306377481290"
	attributes = {
		martial = 8
		diplomacy = 4
		intrigue = 8
		stewardship = 8
		health = 4
		fertility = 7
	}
	traits = {
		lustful = yes
		forgiving = yes
		generous = yes
		wise = yes
		sceptical = yes
		fortune_builder = yes
		pragmatic = yes	}
}

Also his wife should be his rival, she (together with her sons) rebelled against Henry, in 1173 and she was 'improsined' for a long time when Henry caught her.

Henry 'the Young King'
He is described as vain, shallow, irresponsible and impatient, a man who wanted the good things in life now and was unwilling to wait. He was a hedonist and a wastrel, permanently in debt, he was prodigal, improvident, insouciant and foolish. The notice notion of paying his debts or balancing his budget was unknown to him. He was lazy, incompetent and empty-headed. But he did have charisma, people saw more in him then he actually was though.

character = {
	id = { type = 10 id = 4508 }
	name = "Henry" # the Young King
	gender = male
	dynasty = { type = 12 id =369 }
	father = { type = 10 id = 4500 }
	mother = { type = 10 id = 5730 }
	country = ENGL
	religion = catholic
	culture = english
	birthdate = { year = 1155 month = february day = 28 }
	deathdate = { year = 1183 month = june day = 11 }
	dna = "26712380675557"
	attributes = {
		martial = 5
		diplomacy = 5
		intrigue = 5
		stewardship = 2
		health = 5
		fertility = 5
	}
	traits = {
		lazy = yes
		proud = yes
		indulgent = yes
		hole_in_the_pocket = yes
		romantic = yes
	}
}

Richard Angevin
In 1187 Richard was befriended with Phillipe August of France. Later in life they would become rivals/enemies, but in 1187 they were friends. They both worked together against Richard's father, king Henry.

Richard also had rivals, the count of Angouleme, Aimar, was a bitter enemy, just as Hugues de Lusignan, both rebelled against Richard several times. The reason for this that Richard (and his father) wanted to introduce the English fuedal laws (salic primogeneture f.e.) a fact that the Aquitainian nobles didn't like. Another rival would be Raymond the duke of Toulouse, they fought several small wars against each other. Richard considered Toulouse to be a part of the duchy of Aquitaine, this was contested of course by Raymond.

Jerusalem
I would suggest to make Guy de Lusignan, king of Jerusalem again. The fact that he only was king because of his marriage to Sybilla isn't that important. In all the books I have read, Guy is called the king of Jerusalem. If we exclude all male rulers, because they were just rulers because of their marriage then a whole lot of other rulers should be changed to.

 

[unmerged(83588)]

Can you name some examples to who this applies in the game ?

Sure - on page one of this thread jordarkelf talks about the changes he made to DVIP 3

Gave Emma de Hauteville her correct mother Alberada and made her a bastard (disinherited)

Turned Stjepan Trpimirovic into a bastard, so the Croat crown goes to Dmitar Zvonimir instead (as it should)

Angevin ancestor is given the bastard trait to prevent possible inheritance of Jerusalem by England (gameplay fix)

There are already a lot of interesting event-chains concerning bastards, those events would then be useless.

Why would they be useless? The only thing I'm proposing would be a name change from "bastard" to "disinherited" (and I suppose a description change as well).

Another downside is that your rulers can't produce 'bastards' anymore, which means we are missing out a whole lot historical flavour

Rulers would still produce bastards. These children would get the "disinherited" trait instead of the "bastard" trait. But being a bastard wouldn't be the only way to get "disinherited". This is just a small change to tidy up the way the DVIP deals with certain character's inheritences early in the game, but it would actually have a use for event editors. This way, it actually doubles the usefullness of the trait.

Isn't possible, and since you can't play muslims it is a rather useless modification

It's hard-coded into the exe file, but that doesn't make it impossible. The fact you can't play as pagans or that female marshals are not possible were also both hard-coded, but there are mods which allow both of those things. However - the hex string which controls how many wives are allowed is probably not tied to religion, so it's probably not possible to allow muslim characters four wives without everyone also having four wives.

It would be a cosmetic change, true - but that seems to be one of the aims of the DVIP. All the updated COAs are also cosmetic. And, with mods, it's also possible to play as muslims.

Can't be done. Titles are linked to religion (with exception of the Turks) not to culture

How are the Turk's title's handled? If there's an exception in the code, then maybe it can be replicated. Are Paradox likely to help?

There are 3 user-definied tags available, but using them just for different heretic sects would be a waste IMHO.

True. Is the limit to user-defined tags set in the exe? Is paradox able to free that limit? Have they been approached about it?

I'm obviously painfully naive in a lot of my questions - but bear with me. I'll learn soon enough what is possible and what isn't!

Joe

 

[Drachenfire]

Some suggestions for the 1187

England

Matilda Angevin
I know that Drachenfire likes Matilda (id 2991), Empress Maud, very much, but keeping her alive just because of that is nonsense. Matilda died in 1167. Her traits should be modified to, but since she is dead that is not really important. She is described as a greedy, domineering, abusive, headstrong, overbearing, tactless, haughty and arrogant.

She was only described as such by her detractors and enemies who supported Stephen in England. As with most of the kings of this periode, we do not know what her personal characteristics really were. Weather or no she is alive in 1167 is not as important a point. But in the spirit of not being deterministic... IIRC she was alive at the scenario start anyway. So, why would not having her alive effect the player at all? When having her alive offers a both correct placement and a varient version of history... which we are creating?

And the reason most in England objected to her was because not only was she a woman, but she was married to an Anjou, which the Norman barons of England strongly objected to (which she had too, but was forced into that marriage. There had been historic rivalry between the Normans and the Angevins, which bled into the Anglo-Norman nobility of England against the Angevins. Many of the barons who supported Stephen linked Maude to the Angevins.... which was ironic because she herself did not like the Angivens either. lol)

Henry (II) Angevin
I think the stats for king Henry 'the old king' and his dead son, Henry 'the young king' are mixed. King Henry is described wilful, secretive, manipulative, volatile, crafty, slippery, vindictive, brooding, unforgiving (except against his sons), treachorous, cynical, mendacious, perjurious and nihilistic. He was also intelligent and pragmatic.

So I would make him like this

character = {
	id = { type = 10 id = 4500 }
	name = "Henry" # II
	gender = male
	dynasty = { type = 12 id =369 }
	father = { type = 10 id = 4506 }
	mother = { type = 10 id = 2991 }
	country = ENGL
	religion = catholic
	culture = english #Gameplay fix
	score = { gold = 100 prestige = 100 piety = 100 }
	birthdate = { year = 1133 month = may day = 3 }
	dna = "58306377481290"
	attributes = {
		martial = 8
		diplomacy = 4
		intrigue = 8
		stewardship = 8
		health = 4
		fertility = 7
	}
	traits = {
		lustful = yes
		forgiving = yes
		generous = yes
		wise = yes
		sceptical = yes
		fortune_builder = yes
		pragmatic = yes	}
}

Also his wife should be his rival, she (together with her sons) rebelled against Henry, in 1173 and she was 'improsined' for a long time when Henry caught her.

Henry 'the Young King'
He is described as vain, shallow, irresponsible and impatient, a man who wanted the good things in life now and was unwilling to wait. He was a hedonist and a wastrel, permanently in debt, he was prodigal, improvident, insouciant and foolish. The notice notion of paying his debts or balancing his budget was unknown to him. He was lazy, incompetent and empty-headed. But he did have charisma, people saw more in him then he actually was though.

character = {
	id = { type = 10 id = 4508 }
	name = "Henry" # the Young King
	gender = male
	dynasty = { type = 12 id =369 }
	father = { type = 10 id = 4500 }
	mother = { type = 10 id = 5730 }
	country = ENGL
	religion = catholic
	culture = english
	birthdate = { year = 1155 month = february day = 28 }
	deathdate = { year = 1183 month = june day = 11 }
	dna = "26712380675557"
	attributes = {
		martial = 5
		diplomacy = 5
		intrigue = 5
		stewardship = 2
		health = 5
		fertility = 5
	}
	traits = {
		lazy = yes
		proud = yes
		indulgent = yes
		hole_in_the_pocket = yes
		romantic = yes
	}
}

Richard Angevin
In 1187 Richard was befriended with Phillipe August of France. Later in life they would become rivals/enemies, but in 1187 they were friends. They both worked together against Richard's father, king Henry.

Richard also had rivals, the count of Angouleme, Aimar, was a bitter enemy, just as Hugues de Lusignan, both rebelled against Richard several times. The reason for this that Richard (and his father) wanted to introduce the English fuedal laws (salic primogeneture f.e.) a fact that the Aquitainian nobles didn't like. Another rival would be Raymond the duke of Toulouse, they fought several small wars against each other. Richard considered Toulouse to be a part of the duchy of Aquitaine, this was contested of course by Raymond.

Jerusalem
I would suggest to make Guy de Lusignan, king of Jerusalem again. The fact that he only was king because of his marriage to Sybilla isn't that important. In all the books I have read, Guy is called the king of Jerusalem. If we exclude all male rulers, because they were just rulers because of their marriage then a whole lot of other rulers should be changed to.

Im not at all in favor of making Guy as king, according to University of Nottingham professor Benard Hamilton, who wrote in Mideival Women: Queens of Jerusalem, Guy's authority patently derived from his wife, with her premature death he lost all authority, and the crown passed not to Guy or his de Lusignan relitves, but to Sibylla's sister Isabella d'Anjou, then to her daughter. Had Sibylla's own daughters lived (they and Sibylla died of desiese which swep the Crusader camp outside of Acre IIRC) they would have had claim of the crown before Isabella.

Guy was king-consort only, and Sibylla was Queen Regnant. With having Sibylla as Sibylla d'Anjou de Lusignan (tagged to the de Lusignan dynasty) does not effect the succession, and she is also young enough to still produce a male heir (though historically the succession for Jerusalem was followed by no less then 4 women at the time).

I think having Sibylla as Queen is the correct format. Why would we wish to deviate from her as Queen, when allowance was made for the Queen of Georgia?

 

[jordarkelf]

One advantage of keeping Sibylla as Queen Regnant is that the Byzantine succession will not end up in Lusignan hands nine times out of ten.
Jerusalem historically had a rather complex succession, and the De Lusignans of France were never entitled to the crown just because Guy married Sibylla.

 

[Drachenfire]

And a further point about the Aquitaine that should be considered:

Eleanor d'Aquitaine never abdicated Aquitaine to her son Richard, rather Richard was made Duke of Aquitaine as her successor and junior ruler of Aquitaine to herself. In the periode, many rulers crowned their successors alongside themselvs: The king of France made his son also king of France in his lifetime. Melisende of Jerusalem was crowned alongside her father in 1137, and again Melisende's son was crowned king alongside his mother in 1143, as a recognition of his successon to her.

I feel that Eleanor should be made again Duchess of the Aquitaine with the capital in Poitou, the historic capital going back a hundred years. (I dont know why they moved the capital to Bordeaux anyway)

Richard can be recognized as Eleanor's heir and as duke of Gascony, capital in Bordeaux.

I recognize that Eleanor was imprisoned by her husband in 1187 however, with effective governance of all of Aquitaine in her favorite son's Richard's hands.

Its up for debate, given Eleanor's imprisonment in 1187.

edit: By leaving Eleanor a courtier in Henry II FitzEmpress' court the king always makes her a duchess somewhere else also.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

She was only described as such by her detractors and enemies who supported Stephen in England. As with most of the kings of this periode, we do not know what her personal characteristics really were. Weather or no she is alive in 1167 is not as important a point. But in the spirit of not being deterministic... IIRC she was alive at the scenario start anyway. So, why would not having her alive effect the player at all? When having her alive offers a both correct placement and a varient version of history... which we are creating?

The scenario starts in 1187 ! that is 20 years after her death. I know you think she was 'special' but she wasn't that special

There enough sources available on how what the characteristics were of the kings of England and France in those days. There are excellent primary sources available, and since we know what happend it is easy to check if the descriptions are correct or not.

 

[Drachenfire]

The scenario starts in 1187 ! that is 20 years after her death. I know you think she was 'special' but she wasn't that special

There enough sources available on how what the characteristics were of the kings of England and France in those days. There are excellent primary sources available, and since we know what happend it is easy to check if the descriptions are correct or not.

Your right! I rechecked, she is expired in 1187!!! She should not be alive in that periode. And the sources were vehemitly anti Maude because they were written by many in the chuch, and remember that Stephen's brother was also primate of England.

 

[Rogan de Auria]

Look What I've found

It is a really good & useful map for 1066 scenario with the most important Iberian cities of the time too

from 'The Kingdom of León-Castilla under King Alfonso VI' by Bernard F. Reilly

and a genealogy too:

this one from 'A History of Spain and Portugal' by Stanley G. Payne

EDIT
ps: thanks Veldmarschalk for rescuing that 'Valladolid' thread. now I have good resources in english if somebody wants to help!

 

[morhange]

One of the daughters of the Holy Roman Emperor in the 1187 scenario has a child who was born when the daughter (I think it's Agnes) was six. She died young anyway, and shouldn't be married or have any children.

 

[Rogan de Auria]

final conclusions for Galicia Kingdom:
Galicia includes in-game 'Galicia' and 'Porto' Duchies except 'Bierzo', it is under some kind of 'realm duress' and the kings of Leon and Castille had claims on Garcias Titles. Garcia of Galicia is also described as 'impulsive' and 'unaware' because of his youth and sometimes as 'ambitious' too.

Counties (note: IRL counties were much smaller so it's tricky thing):
-Braga (IRL Braga & Porto): 'Nuno Mendes' lands, rebel
-Coimbra: 'Sisnando Davides' lands, mozarabs
-Castelo Branco (IRL Viseu & Lamego?): mozarabs, King's lands but most of the in-game county, including 'castelo branco' itsefl, is not populated-developed
-Bragança: king's lands, not populated.
Theory: If the frontier between 'Santiago' & 'Bragança' is the Miño river then the city of Ourense is IN 'Bragança' province. in 1066 the Bishop of Ourense is called 'Ordonho' -> 'Ordonho of Bragança'... but it's a very bad decision to include him as a character.
-Santiago (IRL Tuy): In this province is King Garcia's court (it's in Ribadabia) so it's the capital, but after Garcia the capital was always in Coruña-Betanzos-Santiago (the in-game 'Compostela' province)
-Compostela (IRL Santiago de Compostela, Mondoñedo and ¿Lugo?): Except for the cities (wich are church lands) This is the province of the 'de Traba/Trava/Trastamara' counts. They are one of the most impotant Galician Dynasties (along with the latter 'de Castro') and I think they should be included as counts of 'Compostela'. 'Froila Bermudez de Traba' was the origin of the dynasty, his son 'Pedro Froilaz de Traba' along with archbishop 'Diego Xelmirez' were the true rulers of 'Galicia' one generation after Garcia, when they rebeled against 'Urraca'. 'Froila Bermudez' grandson 'Fernando Perez de Traba' also ruled over Porto & Coimbra, he was the favourite of 'Alfonso VII' and had 'Fernando II' (future king of leon) as his fosterling. Centuries latter the 'Trastamaras' ruled as kings in spain and some parts of europe.

Courtiers, some were already mentioned, I only have names for the other ones:

-with Count tittle: 'Rodrigo, Vela & Vermudo Ovéquiz' (already mentioned, counts in lugo, loyal to Garcia), 'Muño Rodríguez' and 'Elvira Velásquez'. *'Garcia Muñoz', was a count whose lands were expropriated by Garcia around 1065, aggravating the 'realm duress' situation.
-bishops: Jorge of Túy ('santiago'), Gonzalvo of Mondoñedo ('compostela'), Diego Peláez of Compostela (already mentioned, loyal to Garcia), Ordoño of Orense ('Bragança'?), Pedro of Braga, and Pedro of Lamego ('Castelo Branco'?)
-Other galician nobles (described as 'Magnates'): 'Xelmirio' (and sons, already mentioned, friend of Bishop Pelaez), Fernando Vermúdez, Froila Arias and Muño Velásquez

with this and the things previously mentioned, I can't go much deeper with Galicia/Portugal politics in 1066, so I think that's it.

EDIT, the most important are in bold.
Two of them are boys in 1066; 'Pedro Froilaz de Traba' and 'Diego Xelmirez' (this one in age to have religious education. the 'prodigy' trait can suit him)

ps: very interesting note, at scenario start 'Sancho of Castille' have a claim on 'Rioja' and there is an alliance between Aragon & Navarre. 'Sancho of Castille' go to war shortly after against them.