Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Deus Vult Improvement Pack - Discussion

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
The Angevins are mainly English for game reasons.
Also, language can't really be used as a pointer for culture. Most western courts spoke some form of French at the time, hence "Franks" as a generic term for European at the time.

I'll add those two characters :)

//Edit: done. Additional readme:

1066: Removed duplicate of Isabel de Montfort
1187: Richard Angevin's bastard Philip de Cognac has appeared
1187: Richard Angevin's chancellor William Longchamp, later Bishop of Ely, has appeared.
 
Last edited:
File has been updated again.

Additional changelog:
NAFR reused for Khwarizm, MKHW name changed to Khwarizm; KHWA changed to Khwarizmia
1066: Added a claim on Upper Lorraine for Godfried Duke of Lower Lorraine. He has had the claim since 1044.
1187: Khwarizm is now a proper kingdom using the (free) kingdom tag NAFR, instead of an elevated duchy tag MKWH

You'll have to download the COA pack as well this time to get a proper COA for the kingdom-level Khwarizm. Or copy MKHW.bmp to NAFR.bmp yourself.
 
Last time I checked Arthur Angevin in 1187 had none culture. This may have been fixed recently, I'm not sure how recent my copy is. It also seems odd that the Kingdom of Sicily in 1187 doesn't have semi-salic, considering after the death of the King currently ruling it passed to his grandson through his daughter.
 
Oops, that's a mistake.
Arthur Angevin (Arzhur) should have Breton culture after his mother, but I accidentally used 'breton' instead of 'celtic' to define it :}

Sicily -- the king in 1187 is William the Good (Guillaume until the next update), followed by his nephew Tancred. Tancred was historically followed by his second son William, who died soon and was the last Norman king.
Following William Tancred's son Sicily was held by the Holy Roman Emperor for a while.
There's no grandson inheritance involved here that I know of.
 
A few quick surname fixes.

Komnenus is latin equivilent of Komnenos. Should be changed to latter. Ditto for Palaeologus & Palaiologos. Duplicate ids could be recycled for females eg Komnena & Palaiologina or freed up for yet to be included dynasties.

Also shouldn't the Anjevins in England be changed to Plantagenet?

EDIT -

We may need to rewrite history in changing the birthorder of the de Boulogne brothers making Godfrey (future crusader leader) the eldest in place of Eustace (III), thereby allowing him to inherit Lower Lorraine from his uncle Godfrey the Hunchback.

Would it be possible to include hyponated names for future Popes eg) Hildebrand-Clement VII at scenario starts? Furthermore to add I\II\III's plus any nicknames to deceased rulers (again at scenario start) for easier reference to curious players & impatient modders (like me)?
 
Last edited:
There's no shortage on dynasty IDs, so no need to recycle. I'm definitely "greekifying" them though :)

Plantagenet was only much later adopted by the family and given to their predecessors. In the 1187 scenario the family would have been called Angevin.
 
jordarkelf said:
You mean, the MTTH of the events in advances_discovery is too low?
Is this for all techs, or just a few?
How much should they be increased?

Changing any of these will have vast repercussions across the entire map, so it's probably best dealt with as a separate project.
Click to expand...
Well if the idea of this pack is to improve upon what likely was in the setup files i don't see why.

I do understand that you don't want to rush things, but the IPs have tried to address this in the past as well.

I think it is generally across the board and likely due to high stats of rulers and roads more than anything else, plus in general for 1066 we've had a creeping of adding more and more counties with higher techs in general (atleast more than have been taken away).
 
Veldmaarschalk said:
That can already happen, if your child has a ecclestial education and he finishes that when he is in the court of a ruler with a different religion he will get that religion.

As a catholic count I sent one of my nephews to the court of the king of Nubia and he came back as an orthodox detached priest
Click to expand...


I was under the impression that a fosterling returns when the are 15-16 and that the education traits only finish after they are 16. In the dozens of fosterlings I have sent and reciveved none have enver completed their tuition when a fosterling.

That said, if you have someone trianing to be a priest, or at least learning form the clerics and you send them of to a court of anohter religion, where it will be those clerics that will be doing the insturction there should be a higher chance that the fosterling converts [and to stop them flip flopping on return lose thier education trait]

Something like

If a Fosterling
& is Catholic in an Orthodox court
or is Orthodox in a Catholic court

& has an ecclesiastical education

& is 15 to 16 years of age

Then set to relam religion & finish education.

But they may require complete copies of the education traits.

Who knows.... Then there would be Sunni and Shi'a Fosterlings for the Muslims
 
Fosterlings get sent home some time after they're 16, education finishes (by event) some time after they're 16. It is possible for the education to finish before the fosterling is sent home, but this seldom happens.

I suppose it's quite possible to write a series of events to finish religious education earlier for fosterlings, but is this historically plausible?
When did catholics send their children away to be raised as orthodox, or vice versa?
You have to realize CK is set in the middle ages. The church was immensely important then, you don't just become a schismatic.

I think that the only plausible way to change religion would be to first become a zealous heretic, which should then trigger an event allowing conversion to the other type of christianity (with removal of the heretic trait). Maybe ditto for sunni/shite conversions.
 
jordarkelf said:
Sicily -- the king in 1187 is William the Good (Guillaume until the next update), followed by his nephew Tancred. Tancred was historically followed by his second son William, who died soon and was the last Norman king.
Following William Tancred's son Sicily was held by the Holy Roman Emperor for a while.
There's no grandson inheritance involved here that I know of.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about this guy. I have pretty much no knowledge about this stuff though.
 
Frederick II did not inherit Sicily directly.

Roger II of Sicily had only one surviving son, William (I) the Bad. He, and later his son William (II) the Good would be kings of Sicily.
The problem was that William II died childless.

Constance of Sicily, a daughter of William I's posthumous daughter Beatrix* by his third and last wife, now claimed the crown. She was opposed by the majority of the normans, not only because she was a woman, but also because her husband Henry VI was King of the Germans and Holy Roman Emperor. Having Constance claim the crown would mean a merger of Germany and Sicily.

Tancred, a bastard son of William I's first son, now claimed the crown. He was supported by the majority, and also got support from the Pope, who did not like the idea of having the Papacy surrounded by Germany.

Upon Tancred's death his son William III was deposed following a German invasion, and Henry VI claimed the crown on behalf of Constance.
Henry and Constance's son Frederick "Stupor mundi" thus did not inherit the crown directly from William the Good, but from his parents after these had conquered the realm.

Since the CK engine does not allow for female inheritance, and her succession was not accepted, I think keeping Sicily salic is more correct here. As a legitimized bastard Tancred is William the Good's heir at scenario start -- Germany will have to conquer the lands to get the crown.

As a side-note, William III and his sisters were first imprisoned in Germany, and after that he disappeared. He was probably executed to ensure that no opposing heirs could arise.

*Beatrix Constance's mother might not have been legitimate. In any case she was certainly born after Roger II's death.
 
Last edited:
Duc de Guise said:
jordarkelf said:
1066: Added a claim on Upper Lorraine for Godfried Duke of Lower Lorraine. He has had the claim since 1044.
QUOTE]

I'm against this! ; yes he had, but he dropped it after a brief feud against Duke Gérard ; his sole ennemy for the duchy was Louis de Montbéliard
Click to expand...

As far as I know Godfried IV never dropped the claim.
His father Godfried III had claims to both Lower and Upper Lorraine, but HRE Henry III refused to grant him Lower Lorraine. When he rebelled, Upper Lorraine was also taken from him as punishment, and he was imprisoned in 1045. He was only given Lower Lorraine back in 1065 because he promised to back Henry.
His son Godfried IV didn't actively pursue the title because he had promised to side with Henry III's son Henry IV against the pope (and Godfrey's wife Mathilda of Tuscany), but he certainly held the claim.
Godfried IV had nominated Godfried of Bouillon as heir, but Henry IV instead took Lower Lorraine for his own son Conrad. Godfried of Bouillon only got small parts of the duchy, Bouillon and the Mark of Antwerp.

It was Godfried of Bouillon who finally relinquished the claim, in 1087, upon finally receiving Lower Lorraine from now-King of the Germans Conrad II.

So I think Godfried IV should keep the claim.
Click to expand...
 
jordarkelf said:
NAFR reused for Khwarizm, MKHW name changed to Khwarizm; KHWA changed to Khwarizmia
Click to expand...
sorry to ask this, but i'm in the middle of a game right now and i don't want to download the new version until i'm finished...

anyway, my question: what did you do with the provinces that are normally part of the "North Africa" kingdom? did you give them to another kingdom or change them to "none"?
 
North AFRica hasn't been in the DVIP since start. Those provinces belong to Mauretania (Morocco and Algeria) or Africa (Everything else except Egypt).

Kingdom setup is (or at least, should be) still as in this thread -- there were a few small changes to duchies, but not to kingdoms.
 
jordarkelf said:
I think that the only plausible way to change religion would be to first become a zealous heretic, which should then trigger an event allowing conversion to the other type of christianity (with removal of the heretic trait). Maybe ditto for sunni/shite conversions.
Click to expand...
such an event would still require for Christians finishing of education. Even so i'd say it should be limited to age 15 or so.

I also don't think it should be restricted to just Othodox/Christianity, though it could be more likely to fire.
====
Also an ammedum to my post about the spread, other major factor increasing spread is the increase in trade routes which haven't been dealt with at all because at the time their impact was throught to be less than it is overall. in general it's not much, but for tech spread it along with other creep has had more consequences.
 
jordarkelf said:
I think that the only plausible way to change religion would be to first become a zealous heretic, which should then trigger an event allowing conversion to the other type of christianity (with removal of the heretic trait). Maybe ditto for sunni/shite conversions.
Click to expand...


Personally I agree with you, I hink it is fine the way it is, yes there issome tiny chance if the kid has eclesiastical education for the completion event to fire while he/she is fostered, but it is unlikely. But it is still a possibility. But this keeps this thing very rare.

As to a conversion event for a zealous heretic, that seems like a good idea at first, but... The two chrches were not all that different in the 1066-1400 in practice and in theology. I think anyone who became a catholic zealous heretic was unlikely to be acceptable to the orthodox either. You could call these types, as Protestant istiography usually does, "proto-protestants" But they wouldn't be orthodox. The same is true for Orthodox.

Also you don't want some crazy Spaniard or Scotsman, who has never even seen an orthodox christian suddenly becoming one just because he has heretical ideas. Maybe he has fallen to bogomilism or starts condemming transubstantiation and translating the bible and denying sacramental authority. This makes him a heretic, not orthodox.
 
Improvements for V5

1066
*newly created Constantine Diogenes should be 'Konstantinos'
*decendants of Ivan Vladslav who joined Byzantine nobility Aluzian, Trajan + kids could have a collective surname 'Kometopoulos' (son of the count) which was what the Byzantines called their dynasty instead of 'of Bulgaria'
*Grandson of Anti-King Demetre Bagratuni isn't named David\Davit (at BYZ court) but 'Athom' grandfather to the future Davit Solsan (consort of Queen Thamar)

1187
*Dead Manouel I Komnenos & Marie-Xena de Poitou have married twice, remove 1 from relations file.
*Dead Raymond de Poitou missing bastard trait
*Make Ioannes Angelos (b1124) Prince of Epirus to ease simulation of his descendants who become Despots there post 1204 (+was a hist appt)
*Pr of Nicaea's firstname shouldn't be 'Manuel' (father & son never shared same names in byz naming practices - I'm a bit anal I know) based on Theodoro I of Nicaea's sons names make it either Ioannes or Nikolaos.
*Still on Laskaris family 7 sons Manuel, Mikhael, Georgios, Konstantinos Doukas-Laskaris, Theodoros (I), Alexios, Isaakios + daughter who wed Marco I Sanudo. (imho have Konstantinos, Theodoros & the daughter as the rest don't play a major part in hist. Maybe turn them into ancestors of the Palaiologi.
*Give widow of Alexios II & Andronikos I her birthname aswell (ie) Agnes-Anna, not just Anna).

Name Revisions
Greek;Manuel->Manouel, David->Dauid
Georgian;David->Davit

Suggestion to link dynasties where applicable throughout scenarios with same DNA (even though they've aged), traits etc for continuity.

Finally what's the policy creating dynasties, only those who left kids or include founders & rulers whose legacy was continued by a nephew, son-in-law etc??
 
Last edited:
jordarkelf said:
I suppose it's quite possible to write a series of events to finish religious education earlier for fosterlings, but is this historically plausible?
When did catholics send their children away to be raised as orthodox, or vice versa?
You have to realize CK is set in the middle ages. The church was immensely important then, you don't just become a schismatic.
Click to expand...

The Schism was less than 20 years old, perhaps not so in grained at that point, if you were not a major player. Afterall it was not a heretical difference, but it seems more like a political difference resulting from the cultural differences. In fact it was more subordiantes squabbling and excommunicating each other as opposed to the churchs as a whole.
Is this historically plausible? well the boarder Kingdoms/territories could have swayed between the two depending on the Political advantage/playing both ends against the middle. Or even just the whim of Rulers, as they do. A later period but how many times did England change it state religion?

jordarkelf said:
I think that the only plausible way to change religion would be to first become a zealous heretic, which should then trigger an event allowing conversion to the other type of christianity (with removal of the heretic trait). Maybe ditto for sunni/shite conversions.
Click to expand...

Conversion is to realm religion only. End even then 'Heretic' would not be the best was of dealing with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back