• 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.
It is really hard to get enough eunuchs for council as chinese emperor. I have 90% of seats empty and council always votes for NO. I don't know what to do. Any tips?

There should be a decision available to you that lets you generate new eunuchs for a total of 100 gold.
 
Awesome mod, literally can't play other mods any more! I hope we can play during Five Dynasties period too sometime. Would like to conquer China with Li Keyong as the emperor of (Later) Tang! Perhaps we can see some light on Shatuos, as well as later ethnicities - like Mongols living in deep China becoming sinicized and become Monguors, Jurchens calling themselves Manchus after their successful invasion of China proper.
 
. Would like to conquer China with Li Keyong as the emperor of (Later) Tang!
Li Keyong wasn't an Emperor though, his son Li Cunxu was the first one.
 
Awesome mod, literally can't play other mods any more! I hope we can play during Five Dynasties period too sometime. Would like to conquer China with Li Keyong as the emperor of (Later) Tang! Perhaps we can see some light on Shatuos, as well as later ethnicities - like Mongols living in deep China becoming sinicized and become Monguors, Jurchens calling themselves Manchus after their successful invasion of China proper.

The Iron Century start will be playable at some point (hopefully as part of the next major release, but we'll see; it is the least complete early start by a wide margin, and thus might be delayed), but unless vanilla adds a second(/third/etc,) start in the era that'll be the only FDaTK start we add as we'll otherwise also need to do the work to ensure that vanilla's provinces are correct for the start, so Li Congke will be the only playable Later Tang emperor and he'll (unless I misremember the dates) start in a losing war against Shi Jingtang (Gaozu) of Later Jin and his Liao allies that'd see him subjugated if he loses (in real life, he committed suicide with his family, but that won't be something we force to happen in the game), so reconquering China as him (or his descendants) would probably not be easy.

As for the Shatuo and other cultures, I can't say whether we'll do anything at present, as it depends a bit on how much work we'd need to do for any given culture and how big an improvement it would be to add the culture.
 
Is it possible to restrict the Song's style zhangjiaofutou (headgear 3 and 4) to the late era and replace them with the Tang's style pibian and putou (headgear 6 and 8) for the early era?
Also, and this is just my opinion, but maybe get rid of the default emperor crown altogether (the tongtianquan)? There are so many things off with that hat. It should have had special outfit to go with it. It looks horrible with most of it being cut off from the frame and more resembles an oversize fez. Since it was replaced with the zhangjiaofutou for the Song emperors anyway, maybe make that the default emperor crown for the late era and the pibian for the early era, for the sake of consistency if nothing else?
 
Is it possible to restrict the Song's style zhangjiaofutou (headgear 3 and 4) to the late era and replace them with the Tang's style pibian and putou (headgear 6 and 8) for the early era?

It might be possible, but I don't know enough about portrait modding to say for sure or to easily make it that way. However, unless there's something similar in the custom Early JD portrait pack, the zhangjiaofutou should be restricted to the historical Song (Zhao) dynasty (and emperors that belong to a Song bloodline), so most rulers (including all the ones in the currently unsupported early starts) should use something else (I don't know for sure what they'll use).

Also, and this is just my opinion, but maybe get rid of the default emperor crown altogether (the tongtianquan)? There are so many things off with that hat. It should have had special outfit to go with it. It looks horrible with most of it being cut off from the frame and more resembles an oversize fez. Since it was replaced with the zhangjiaofutou for the Song emperors anyway, maybe make that the default emperor crown for the late era and the pibian for the early era, for the sake of consistency if nothing else?

I doubt we'll mess with the actual JD portraits to any significant extent, and I'm not sure we'll do anything with the custom Early JD portraits either (and, as mentioned, I don't really know a lot about portrait modding, so what I could do is very limited). At the very least, outside of fixing clearly broken portraits (e.g. portraits missing noses), work on portraits is nowhere close to being a priority at the moment.
 
I'm not sure why the pdx artist equated the pibian and putou with hoods and the zhangjiaofutou with count's and duke's circlet. The latter was an evolution of the pibian and was wore in different a time. In any case, I just thought that it would be a shame not to do something about this since the graphical resources are already there, though of course what someone who don't know about modding like myself imagine can be done is different from what can actually be done.

As for whether or not to use the default crown, the Song emperors wore it as well as the zhangjiaofutou and several other styles for the various different occasions. The surviving portraits depicting them wearing almost exclusively the zhangjiaofutou because emperors' official portraits were often intended for worshiping in the ancestral temple and this ritual required only a casual style. They would wear the default crown for the daily meetings with the officials. Since the mod already used the zhangjiaofutou as the default dress style for the Song emperors, I was hoping the team would consider using the pibian and the zhangjiaofutou as the default style for the early and late period from a consistency perspective, though I appreciate not having to look at the default blue crown again for whatever reason :D.
 
We don't have anything against the existence of submods in general, but it is possible that there might be things that we don't want to be reused (or that we can't grant permission to reuse, because we got them from someone else), things that we want something in return for (e.g. a "You get to use X (with credits), we get to use Y (with credits)"-style deal with another mod), (sub)mods we find highly objectionable (as a rule of thumb, if something isn't too extreme for vanilla, we're probably fine with it, and we are very unlikely to be opposed to balance changes or the like) and don't want to give stuff to, or modders we don't want to assist for some reason (e.g. if you start calling people on the Tianxia team names, you might find it difficult to get permission to reuse our work), so we don't want to give blanket approval to every possible (sub)mod that uses some of our stuff.

As someone who has made submods for almost every overhaul mod, this is something I never actually realized to consider!

So if I were to want to make a submod, just for example-sake say Buff Catholicism in Vietnam, and I needed to modify 00_religions to do so, would I need to get permission to make this submod because Tianxia also modifies 00_religions? In actuality I likely will make some submod to add some stuff to Vietnam and that general area (in-laws are from there so I'm invested in that area), whether it be events, societies, etc. I'm not sure yet.

Side note, is this mod suppose to disable all feudal holy wars (for catholics and the like as well), or is that a bug?
 
Last edited:
As someone who has made submods for almost every overhaul mod, this is something I never actually realized to consider!

So if I were to want to make a submod, just for example-sake say Buff Catholicism in Vietnam, and I needed to modify 00_religions to do so, would I need to get permission to make this submod because Tianxia also modifies 00_religions? In actuality I likely will make some submod to add some stuff to Vietnam and that general area (in-laws are from there so I'm invested in that area), whether it be events, societies, etc. I'm not sure yet.

Side note, is this mod suppose to disable all feudal holy wars (for catholics and the like as well), or is that a bug?

No one's going to stop you from making and using a submod for you own personal use, for those you don't need permission. It's necessary if you are publishing it and making it available for others to use as well. In short, do what you want for your own personal experience, but don't claim ownership or publish without consent.

Feudal Holy Wars being disabled should be a bug unless it is a specific condition introduced by the vanilla update.
 
Sorry if that came up befor, but are there plans to introduce a mechanic for the examinations eventually?
 
As someone who has made submods for almost every overhaul mod, this is something I never actually realized to consider!

So if I were to want to make a submod, just for example-sake say Buff Catholicism in Vietnam, and I needed to modify 00_religions to do so, would I need to get permission to make this submod because Tianxia also modifies 00_religions? In actuality I likely will make some submod to add some stuff to Vietnam and that general area (in-laws are from there so I'm invested in that area), whether it be events, societies, etc. I'm not sure yet.

Side note, is this mod suppose to disable all feudal holy wars (for catholics and the like as well), or is that a bug?

- If you do something you don't share at all (or that you only share with a few people while playing MP games), you can do essentially whatever you want as we can't stop you.

- If you create a submod that only uses your own files or vanilla files we've not modified and that doesn't copy our stuff (this doesn't include referencing our stuff in your files, e.g. with a "culture = japanese" check/command), we can't stop you from sharing it as long as you don't claim that it is an official part of Tianxia (calling it a Tianxia submod is fine, unless we tell you otherwise).

- For anything else you intend to make publicly available, you need to ask before you post something. We'll probably grant any request to make minor tweaks/balance changes or to copy a small amount of script with only very basic conditions (roughly "Don't remove attribution/credits, don't break DLC locks, don't take anything you don't need, and don't grant reuse permission to third parties"), and a request to copy a vanilla file where we've only done compatibility tweaks/bugfixes (which would be the case for 00_religions.txt) will probably be granted with even fewer/no restrictions, but we reserve the right to refuse a request or to impose further conditions on a case-by-case basis.

There are also a couple of general expectations:

- If a Tianxia update (or vanilla update) breaks your submod, fixing it is up to you even if you were relying on something in the main mod. We won't set out to break submods for no good reason, but we won't avoid making changes even if they might break a submod.

- While we won't steal your work, it is quite likely that we'll take inspiration from some of the same sources, which might result in us doing something similar to what you've done or, in the case of history file tweaks, that we end up doing the same thing (because correcting a historical error can only really be done in one way). If this happens, we expect you to not try to prevent this because your submod did it first.


Regarding holy wars, unless something has broken (I rather doubt it, as the file in question hasn't been tweaked recently and I'm reasonably sure I've seen holy wars happen during my obsever games), they should work for all religions that normally get them (we've not blocked them for vanilla religions, and all of our reformed pagans can get them unless their HF reformation blocks holy wars) as long as you don't have the Confucian Bureaucracy, Chinese Imperial, or Japanese Feudal government types and as long as you're not prevented due to a Chinese Peace Deal or the like. The listed governments are intentionally prevented from using holy wars as "Worship as you like!" and "Buddha [or applicable pagan god] vult!" aren't really compatible.

Sorry if that came up befor, but are there plans to introduce a mechanic for the examinations eventually?

Maybe. It depends on whether we figure out something we want to do with it and whether we can implement whatever it is we want to do.
 
While we won't steal your work, it is quite likely that we'll take inspiration from some of the same sources, which might result in us doing something similar to what you've done or, in the case of history file tweaks, that we end up doing the same thing (because correcting a historical error can only really be done in one way). If this happens, we expect you to not try to prevent this because your submod did it first.

In my opinion, having a sub-mod integrated into the main branch is awesome. Turns into better compatibility (other submods etc. will be built around it as well) *and* I no longer have to maintain it throughout the main mods updates? Quite a win-win :D

Currently the only things I've done for personal use were compatibility patches for other mods such as Playable Dynastic Theocracies/Patrum Scuta/etc, if anyone else here is interested in those sorts of things I can see about getting permission to share, otherwise I'll just not upload to save myself the trouble :)
 
In my opinion, having a sub-mod integrated into the main branch is awesome. Turns into better compatibility (other submods etc. will be built around it as well) *and* I no longer have to maintain it throughout the main mods updates? Quite a win-win :D

If we like something a submod has done and we can reach an agreement that lets us make the submod's content official, that is of course going to be a win-win, and we're not opposed to that possibility being on the table. However, we want it to be clear that:

- We don't assume that we've got permission to incorporate a submod's content unless we reach an agreement or the submod's creator tells us that we can use it. If you don't want to share your work with us, or if you don't have permission to share something (say because you got specific permission to borrow something from another mod), you're not under any obligation to do so just because you released it as a Tianxia submod.

- We won't necessarily incorporate something from a submod just because we've got permission to do incorporate it. Something could be unbalanced, unfun (which is very subjective, of course), unfitting, unpolished, or simply undesirable, so we reserve the right to not add something.

- We won't let a submod limit the scope of Tianxia. This means we don't have to check "Has a submod done anything related to this?" before we work on something (and that we don't need to discard our work in case a submod is revealed before we're ready to reveal something) and that any "Let me use your Grace system or you can't add anything related to the Mongols as I created a small Mongol submod!"-style ultimatum won't work (and likely will backfire spectacularly).
 
If we like something a submod has done and we can reach an agreement that lets us make the submod's content official, that is of course going to be a win-win, and we're not opposed to that possibility being on the table. However, we want it to be clear that:

- We don't assume that we've got permission to incorporate a submod's content unless we reach an agreement or the submod's creator tells us that we can use it. If you don't want to share your work with us, or if you don't have permission to share something (say because you got specific permission to borrow something from another mod), you're not under any obligation to do so just because you released it as a Tianxia submod.

- We won't necessarily incorporate something from a submod just because we've got permission to do incorporate it. Something could be unbalanced, unfun (which is very subjective, of course), unfitting, unpolished, or simply undesirable, so we reserve the right to not add something.

- We won't let a submod limit the scope of Tianxia. This means we don't have to check "Has a submod done anything related to this?" before we work on something (and that we don't need to discard our work in case a submod is revealed before we're ready to reveal something) and that any "Let me use your Grace system or you can't add anything related to the Mongols as I created a small Mongol submod!"-style ultimatum won't work (and likely will backfire spectacularly).
Man, so much to think about. Makes me miss the "old days" when a mod was uploaded to the internet it became owned by the "community" and anyone could modify, fork, etc. without much worry! But I do get it, it helps people keep their baby "theirs" :)
 
Regarding holy wars, unless something has broken (I rather doubt it, as the file in question hasn't been tweaked recently and I'm reasonably sure I've seen holy wars happen during my obsever games), they should work for all religions that normally get them (we've not blocked them for vanilla religions, and all of our reformed pagans can get them unless their HF reformation blocks holy wars) as long as you don't have the Confucian Bureaucracy, Chinese Imperial, or Japanese Feudal government types and as long as you're not prevented due to a Chinese Peace Deal or the like. The listed governments are intentionally prevented from using holy wars as "Worship as you like!" and "Buddha [or applicable pagan god] vult!" aren't really compatible..

So I just redownloaded the base mod 7.0.0 (without the content pack just to be sure) and was unable to declare holy wars as anyone (with that being the only mod I have enabled), ran into someone else on Reddit who was having the same issue as well. Going to see if I can hunt down the issue, if so I'll post an edit here.


UPDATE:

In 00_cb_types, the issue lies within lines 6009-6018. Commenting out the FROM statement here nested in the OR+NOT statement fixes the issue, as seen in the block below.

Code:
            OR = {
                NOT = {
                    religion = buddhist
                    # FROM = {
                        # NOT = {
                            # religion = shinto
                        # }
                    # }
                }
            }

I'm super new to using this overhaul so I don't know what the intentions are in order make a proper fix, but hopefully this information will save you all some time.
 
Last edited:

That would appear to be broken, yes, but your fix would completely block duchy-tier holy wars for Buddhists, which isn't the intentional behaviour.

This

Code:
OR = {
   NOT = {
       religion = buddhist
   }
   FROM = {
       NOT = {
           religion = shinto
       }
   }
}

in place of lines 6008-6018 will have the intended behaviour of forbidding (duchy-tier, as it is that CB) Buddhist holy wars against Shinto rulers.

Now that I know what was broken, I noticed some other things that should be changed related to the above (all line numbers are given after the preceding fix on the list has been implemented):

- After line 6055 ("FROM = { religion = taoist}"), add "FROM = { religion = shinto }" as the new 6056.
- After line 6196 ("FROM = { religion = taoist}"), add "FROM = { religion = shinto }" as the new 6197. This, along with the preceding fix, will permit Hindu holy wars against Shinto rulers, which is the intended behaviour.
- Comment out (with "#") line 15268 ("FROM = { religion = shinto }").
- Comment out (with "#") line 15284 ("FROM = { religion = shinto }"). This, along with the preceding fix, will outright forbid county-tier Buddhist holy wars against Shinto rulers (intended) instead of invalidating them instantly (which has the same end result but isn't how it should be handled).

These fixes should all be in the next update, but as I don't know how soon we'll be updating and a lack of holy wars will be annoying I'm putting the fix here so that you can implement it in the meantime if you prefer not to wait.

Also, for anyone implementing this fix on their own: Be aware that any tweaks to CB files will alter the checksum. It doesn't matter during gameplay (since achievements aren't a factor with a checksum-altering mod), but if you're making a bug report with a weird checksum and don't mention that you've edited a file we might look at the checksum and tell you that you should download the mod again to see if it helps, which would revert this fix and which isn't guaranteed to fix the other issue.
 
The Chinese translations of the names of the Chinese provinces (the characters on the COA of the Chinese duchies) are all wrong. For example Jingji was supposed to be 京畿 (area surrounding the capital) but got translated to 經濟 (economy) and Liangzhe was supposed to be 兩浙 (Two "Zhes" referring to Zhejiang East and West) but got translated to 亮浙 (illustrious/shining Zhejiang?). Also the Chinese characters are in simplified Chinese which wasn't invented until the 20th century. This is completely immersion breaking. What's more, the viceroy of Guangdong in Southern China starts out holding tons of land halfway across the country in northern China in 1066 which is weird.
 
The Chinese translations of the names of the Chinese provinces (the characters on the COA of the Chinese duchies) are all wrong. For example Jingji was supposed to be 京畿 (area surrounding the capital) but got translated to 經濟 (economy) and Liangzhe was supposed to be 兩浙 (Two "Zhes" referring to Zhejiang East and West) but got translated to 亮浙 (illustrious/shining Zhejiang?). Also the Chinese characters are in simplified Chinese which wasn't invented until the 20th century. This is completely immersion breaking. What's more, the viceroy of Guangdong in Southern China starts out holding tons of land halfway across the country in northern China in 1066 which is weird.

Could you report these kinds of errors in the Bug Report Thread instead as it is clearly unintentional and therefore a mistake. Thanks!
 
I have another contribution.
I finished off the coat of arms within de jure china (184 replace white COAs.zip).
While I was at it I "redid" all other china coat of arms (118 replace existing COAs.zip). Some of the existing ones are quite nice, so these are only meant as a fallback, maybe if the existing are using the wrong type of character.
And speaking of characters, you can see which hanzi I used for each county/duchy/kingdom in the attached spreadsheet (trad chinese.xlsx).

Here are samples:
Dingxi 定西
c_dingxi.png

Guixian 貴縣
d_guixian.png

If this was useful, then next I could also knock out Korea and Dali. I think using Hanzi is still appropriate for those places.
 

Attachments

  • 184 replace white COAs.zip
    225,6 KB · Views: 44
  • 118 replace existing COAs.zip
    145,3 KB · Views: 31
  • trad chinese.xlsx
    122,4 KB · Views: 28
Last edited: