• 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.
May I ask, what new changes have made it into EMF Beta 11.1 22nd January 2020 version in comparison to the previous open Beta?
I understand it's a courtesy that we get those Beta versions as open, but maybe it would be a good idea to mark the difference somehow? The changelog has changed considerably from e.g. the 30th December 2019 and it's still just Beta 11.1.
 
Hi all. in emf_empires there's an event that causes an empire title to break apart and its non de jure vassals to become independent. I've been trying without success to modify the event to give the (former) emperor claims on his ex-vassals' primary titles, but I'm no modder and any edits I've made have no effects. Can anyone help?
 
Hi all. in emf_empires there's an event that causes an empire title to break apart and its non de jure vassals to become independent. I've been trying without success to modify the event to give the (former) emperor claims on his ex-vassals' primary titles, but I'm no modder and any edits I've made have no effects. Can anyone help?

You have it somewhat wrong. The only vassals which become independent after the empire is destroyed are vassal kings, because the event gives the emperor a king-tier title to bind any duke- or lower-tier vassals after the empire-tier title is destroyed, but obviously a king-tier title cannot bind king-tier vassals.

Before any king-tier vassals are set free by destroying the empire title in the event's `option` block, do something like this:

Code:
any_vassal = {
    limit = { tier = KING } # A king-tier vassal that will go independent
    # For their primary title, we will give a strong, pressed claim (can be pressed at any time and will also be
    # inherited) to ROOT, the emperor:
    primary_title = {
        if = {
            limit = { controls_religion = no } # Don't want claims on religious head titles
            add_pressed_claim = ROOT # Give strong, heritable claim
        }
    }
    # For all this vassal's secondary king-tier titles, if any, upon which ROOT, the emperor, doesn't already
    # have a strong claim, we'll give ROOT a weak but heritable claim:
    any_demesne_title = {
        limit = {
            is_primary_holder_title = no # Not the primary
            is_primary_holder_title_tier = yes # Same tier as the primary (KING)
            controls_religion = no # Don't want claims on religious head titles
            NOT = { ROOT = { has_strong_claim = PREV } } # Don't have a strong claim on it already
        }
        add_weak_pressed_claim = ROOT # Give weak, heritable claim
    }
}

Note the any_vassal = { limit = { tier = KING } ... } bit. You can already find where we set the kings free before title destruction in the following screenshot (note the line numbers if nec.). That's probably where you want to add this claim code. Code section:

2020-02-01_1437_4E63.png


Here, we're proactively giving independence to the king-tier vassals (set_defacto_liege = THIS) in order to hint our core maintenance code (emf_liege_change = yes) that they're going independent (and do debug logging of it) rather than just destroy the title and let the chips fall where they may.
 
Last edited:
is there room for events such as controlling the majority of the cardinals in the pope election unlocking some events to make one of your cardinals the pope? if not its probobly one of the unused function fin the game itself ...at most you throw money and hope you win but after that it still so bad getting your guys to be the pope.
 
Does the Becoming a Saint ambition actually interfere with becoming a saint? I followed it as an extremely pious ruler up to the option to abdicate and become a monk, which I did. When my character died he was a Paragon, yet he couldn't even get beatified. I thought that was strange so I checked the wiki and saw that one of the requirements to become a saint is to be a count-tier ruler or higher; does abdicating make it so that criteria is no longer fulfilled?
 
I thought that was strange so I checked the wiki and saw that one of the requirements to become a saint is to be a count-tier ruler or higher; does abdicating make it so that criteria is no longer fulfilled?
The wiki isn't really relevant for mods. I have had unlanded characters beatified so them becoming saints should definitely be possible.
 
The wiki isn't really relevant for mods. I have had unlanded characters beatified so them becoming saints should definitely be possible.

Well then I can't figure out what it could be. I checked the event file for it and as far as I could tell my character fulfilled all the requirements for beatification, the only one I'm unsure of is the "is_playable" one since I don't think monks are playable.
 
I'm thinking of making a submod by changing the location of the buildings in the game, not anymore Castle Walls I, Castle Walls II, Castle Walls III. So I saw that there is an emf_buildings file full of cultural buildings, for me to do everything right I should just change the localization of the non-cultural buildings in the vanilla files and make the cultural ones normal (or remove) and change the cultures just in HIP files?
 
I'm thinking of making a submod by changing the location of the buildings in the game, not anymore Castle Walls I, Castle Walls II, Castle Walls III. So I saw that there is an emf_buildings file full of cultural buildings, for me to do everything right I should just change the localization of the non-cultural buildings in the vanilla files and make the cultural ones normal (or remove) and change the cultures just in HIP files?

The events in that file exist as a workaround to a hardcoded limitation in the game. Holdings are only allowed to have one special unit type in their levy. If buildings are present that would give multiple, different special troop levies, the special troop that is defined first is the one that the holding locks itself into... even if the building that defined it is not active. This can lead to situations where e.g. a holding will have some cultural building that gives horse archers (e.g. Greek cultural building), but then gets taken over by someone with a culture whose cultural building would give camel cavalry (e.g. the Levantine Arabic cultural building). That camel person could build their cultural building, but because the old building that gave horse archers was built first, their holding will not end up with any camel levies (because horse archers are locked in) or horse archer levies (because the horse archer building is not active). The solution is to destroy and then re-build the older building, making the camel cavalry levies of the new building the first defined levy.
 
The alpha branch of EMF introduces changes to the AI logic behind joining crusades. I welcome those and I have to say it's very impressive how fast some of the ideas mentioned in this thread were implemented.

I recently stumbled upon a short, but interesting read on very same topic [link]. Two things that stood out to me:

Meanwhile, pope Paschal II refused to accept the crusading vows of the noblemen from the Iberian Peninsula and forbade them any participation in a crusade to the Holy Land. Instead of fighting Turks or Fatimids, he expected them to fight Almoravids within their own borders.

Few years later (ca. 1103), Paschal discouraged another potential crusader. Bertrand of Toulouse, son of a crusading hero Raymond of Saint-Gilles, confirmed his wish to visit the Holy Land. However, as Bertrand was subject to excommunication due to continuous looting of the Church property in Saint-Gilles, Paschal wrote him a letter to prevent him from journeying East as the pilgrimage “would not grant his soul any benefit at all”.

Paschal did his best to avoid a precedent that an excommunicated person could redeem them-selves by a pilgrimage to Jerusalem without any actual act of satisfaction. Possibly for the same reason, Paschal ignored the crusading vow of the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV (1056/84–1105) who accepted the cross in 1103. As Henry was excommunicated due to the Investiture Controversy, Paschal did not react to his lingering until his death in 1106.

Although Paschal’s approach was theologically and politically justified, he was making distinctions among those who considered the journey. Discouraging Bertrand and ignoring Henry’s commitment implied that the crusading vow did not necessarily mean the obligation to journey to Jerusalem for everyone.

Resulting from the above, I would suggest to:

1) Bar rulers from joining if they have possible crusade (or holy war?) targets next door. This might be difficult to implement and tbh I'm not entirely sure what the exact criteria should be. But it would not only make sense from an immersion, but also from a game balance point of view (Iberian catholic realms weakening themselves unnecessarily when they share a border with a hostile Al-Andalus or even weirder, crusader Jerusalem fighting heretics in continental Europe while being surrounded by infidels).

2) Modify (references to) HFP.41056/HFP.41057 as it wasn't really a thing historically to have excommunicated rulers to be allowed to participate in a crusade except when the reason for the excommunication was that they failed to respect their vow to join a previous crusade (has_character_flag = crusade_excommunicated). A ruler should first get their excommunication lifted the normal way before they'd be allowed to pledge (again, unless excommunicated for breaking a crusade vow).
 
Is there a rule that you can't have more than one empire title? How can i do it if i want to become emperor of persia and sayoshant first, then afterwards reform the roman empire? Is it possible to change your primary title empire?
 
The alpha branch of EMF introduces changes to the AI logic behind joining crusades. I welcome those and I have to say it's very impressive how fast some of the ideas mentioned in this thread were implemented.

Thanks. We do listen. And we're also paying quite a bit of personal attention too, so we're fairly in touch with your guys' experiences.

1) Bar rulers from joining if they have possible crusade (or holy war?) targets next door. This might be difficult to implement and tbh I'm not entirely sure what the exact criteria should be. But it would not only make sense from an immersion, but also from a game balance point of view (Iberian catholic realms weakening themselves unnecessarily when they share a border with a hostile Al-Andalus or even weirder, crusader Jerusalem fighting heretics in continental Europe while being surrounded by infidels).

Hmm. Would not be super-easy to realize in practice. You say "possible crusade (or holy war?) targets next door," but only the Pope can call a Crusade, and if he's already preparing one, then by definition there are no valid Crusade targets next door (cannot be multiple Crusades launched by the same faith at the same time), so that only leaves holy wars (and is effectively what Pope Paschal meant).

We can do some gymnastics to evaluate if the target ruler currently has the ability to declare one of our 3 holy war CBs (1 normal, 1 special, 1 being Religious Reconquest) on an infidel/heathen/heretic, but there are some pragmatic issues wherein the historical behavior would have difficulty staying aligned with CK2's effective behavior:
  • It's quite likely that between holy war cooldowns and piety cost restrictions and such, they just won't have any valid holy war CBs available at the time.
  • Even if they were available, I think I'm against forcing the AI to declare the holy war on their lonesome via script. Given this, the decision to use the CB would be up to the hard-coded AI, and knowing the AI, I just don't see such a ruler reliably actually following through and declaring holy war locally rather than participating in the Crusade. I mean, for one, there's a good chance they're simply outmatched military-wise.
TL;DR: Not impossible at all, but I'm not sure doing it in a robust and coherent way is worth the required complexity just to represent this policy of Pope Paschal II.

2) Modify (references to) HFP.41056/HFP.41057 as it wasn't really a thing historically to have excommunicated rulers to be allowed to participate in a crusade except when the reason for the excommunication was that they failed to respect their vow to join a previous crusade (has_character_flag = crusade_excommunicated). A ruler should first get their excommunication lifted the normal way before they'd be allowed to pledge (again, unless excommunicated for breaking a crusade vow).

This could be done, certainly. Was this again a Paschal thing or really throughout the entire Crusader era? I'll probably defer to @Delnar_Ersike.

Is there a rule that you can't have more than one empire title? How can i do it if i want to become emperor of persia and sayoshant first, then afterwards reform the roman empire? Is it possible to change your primary title empire?

As @Whizzer said but I shall further elucidate:

If you're an emperor and you gain a secondary empire title somehow, then an event will popup and force you to choose between whether to keep your current empire title and destroy the new one (for free -- not the same punishing opinion and prestige effects of a manual title destruction) OR take the new empire title as your primary and destroy the old empire. Note that there's no way to game Imperial Decay this way (since Decay is tied to an empire title and not any one character, you'd think you might, but you can't).

This is the policy of "One Emperor, One Empire" that both EMF and CK2+ (and probably some other overhaul mods? IDK) enforce for plausibility reasons. Empires were not things that rulers collected; there was never an Emperor of more than one Empire.

As to your question, though: Well, conquer Persia so that you can form/usurp it. I have no idea how you will then somehow gain the throne of the Byzantine Empire, but uh, assuming you can manage to do so, then you'd be asked to choose. Since you want to reform Rome, you'd choose to take the Byzantine Empire as your new empire title once you somehow gain it and let the event destroy the Persian Empire (you don't lose any vassals, they all just become 'annexed' into the de facto Byzantine Empire). From there, you follow the standard path to reforming the Roman Empire, which typically involves a lot of Imperial Reconquest.
 
Hmm. Would not be super-easy to realize in practice.
That is what I feared.

You say "possible crusade (or holy war?) targets next door," but only the Pope can call a Crusade, and if he's already preparing one, then by definition there are no valid Crusade targets next door (cannot be multiple Crusades launched by the same faith at the same time), so that only leaves holy wars (and is effectively what Pope Paschal meant).
I'm aware of that. I guess my wording was a bit confusing. What I meant was if there's a realm that could be a crusade target (muslim Al-Andalus would qualify) in the neighbourhood then it would make sense that the local catholic realms should be expected to concentrate their efforts on fighting the immediate threats and not waste resources on far away threats (crusade targets in the Levant).

We can do some gymnastics to evaluate if the target ruler currently has the ability to declare one of our 3 holy war CBs (1 normal, 1 special, 1 being Religious Reconquest) on an infidel/heathen/heretic, but there are some pragmatic issues wherein the historical behavior would have difficulty staying aligned with CK2's effective behavior:
  • It's quite likely that between holy war cooldowns and piety cost restrictions and such, they just won't have any valid holy war CBs available at the time.
  • Even if they were available, I think I'm against forcing the AI to declare the holy war on their lonesome via script. Given this, the decision to use the CB would be up to the hard-coded AI, and knowing the AI, I just don't see such a ruler reliably actually following through and declaring holy war locally rather than participating in the Crusade. I mean, for one, there's a good chance they're simply outmatched military-wise.
I would like to clarify that I didn't advocate for forced war declarations via script. Just that rulers shouldn't join a Crusade if the target is far away and they have hostile actors that could otherwise be crusade targets as neighbours.

As for how to script it, would the following be possible? Warning, pseudo-code incoming:
Code:
Could any neighbour be a possible crusade target?
  - If yes, then
    - Is any of them the current crusade target?
      - If yes --> allow to join
      - Else --> don't allow to join
  - Else --> allow to join

Optionally don't ban it outright, just make it less likely that they join.

Or alternatively, maybe it would suffice to only exclude the Iberians then and not make it a universal ban? Simply don't join crusades until Reconquista has been finished (no independent muslim realms in Iberia) unless the crusade target is located in Iberia. Make an exception for the human player.

I understand if you deem it to be too difficult or bothersome to implement. Just thinking about how to implement it gave me a headache, but I'm also no wizard in Paradox scripting, so... :)

TL;DR: Not impossible at all, but I'm not sure doing it in a robust and coherent way is worth the required complexity just to represent this policy of Pope Paschal II.
A valid point. Though at least Wikipedia didn't seem to mention any cases of Iberian rulers participating in any of the crusades in the Levant before Reconquista was finished. But I'm no expert and I could certainly have missed something.

Edit: formatting
 
Last edited: