The Empires of God (wip)

[omega20056]

I think you're putting too much emphasis on the names and titles. Here, I'll explain it to you:

1. It's fine calling it the Byzantine Empire if it's ruled by a Catholic or a Latin because it is still based in Greek lands.
2. I don't think the emperor should need to hold a second title to reform the west, they should be able to do it just by conquering land.
3. Why would a Greek king be titled basileus? Only the emperor claim that title, and a Greek king during this era was usually titled despot.

Historically, when the Western Empire began to decline, the Eastern Empire became the senior empire. The western emperor required the recognition of the eastern emperor to be considered legitimate.

 

[fanoI]

The term "Basileus" is in my mod the localization of the title "Emperor" for Orthodox characters, it is in my mod the middle tier between King and Emperor, the Byzantine Emperor that is the legittimate Emperor in the West (the true Emperor if you prefer) is called "Basileus Autokratôr" remember that the term Basileus in Greek meant more "King" that "Emperor" indeed for a period the form "Megas Basileus" (Great King) for the Byzantine Emperor was used too!

The fact that the Byzantine Emperor needs an Imperial title in the West makes sense for the mod mechanic: The Roman Empire is seen as an High Empire (do you remember the mod presentation? A tier above Emperor!) formable by the one that rules the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire and to form them you need to be Emperor of specific territories.

 

[omega20056]

In Alexander's time, "Basileus" meant king (As did "Tyrant"), but the Byzantine emperors redefined it on purpose. For example, Heralicus always referred to the Sassanid emperor as the "Basileus of Persia" rather than "Autokrator." The Romans always accepted the Persian leaders as legitimate emperors, but considered them barbarians anyway. Using "Basileus Autokrator" doesn't really make sense because the term "Autokrator" was more of an honorary, similar to the earlier Roman title of "Imperator." The few Greek kings that existed during the game's time-frame always referred to themselves as "Despot" because it was lower than the emperor's title. The rulers of Trebizond titled themselves "Basileus and Autokrator of All the East" in defiance of the Nicaean emperors while the rulers of Epirus used "Despot" after they failed to take Constantinople from the Latin Empire.

I understand what you mean regarding the Roman Empire as a universal empire (Even after the Muslim conquests, the Byzantines always seen the conquest of the world in the name of the Christian God as their ultimate destiny), but Byzantium shouldn't need to hold any specific Western title because it legally is the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire never fell, it just moved to the east and then shrank in the face of its enemies. The only thing Byzantium should need to do to reform the classical Roman Empire is reconquer the West. The idea here is not that Byzantium is claiming to be a new Roman Empire (As I said previously, it already is the Roman Empire), it's forcing the barbarians to recognise its rightful claim. The "Reform the Roman Empire" decision for Byzantium in LoR doesn't create a new empire (Game-wise it does, but we're ignoring that), it merely forces the West to recognise Byzantium as the classical Roman Empire.

 

[fanoI]

In Alexander's time, "Basileus" meant king (As did "Tyrant"), but the Byzantine emperors redefined it on purpose. For example, Heralicus always referred to the Sassanid emperor as the "Basileus of Persia" rather than "Autokrator." The Romans always accepted the Persian leaders as legitimate emperors, but considered them barbarians anyway. Using "Basileus Autokrator" doesn't really make sense because the term "Autokrator" was more of an honorary, similar to the earlier Roman title of "Imperator."

Well it is really difficult to find a difference between the titles linked to land and the honorary titles when we talk of the Roman / Byzatines, yes in origin Imperator was the title of a mighty general but then was the title of the head of State! Ceasar was a cognomen or a title? And Augustus? What is an "Imperator Augustus"? What is a "Basileus Autokrator"?
A naive translation could be (High) King with unlimited power probably...
It is a title that came by RIRSEI by the way...

The few Greek kings that existed during the game's time-frame always referred to themselves as "Despot" because it was lower than the emperor's title. The rulers of Trebizond titled themselves "Basileus and Autokrator of All the East" in defiance of the Nicaean emperors while the rulers of Epirus used "Despot" after they failed to take Constantinople from the Latin Empire.

Yes but the localization Basileus will be used only for Orthodox Emperors that have no link with the Roman Empire, in the west I had no title that would mean "more than King without be an Emperor" and in any case the Christians used "King" as title (King of Spain, King of Great Britain...).

I understand what you mean regarding the Roman Empire as a universal empire (Even after the Muslim conquests, the Byzantines always seen the conquest of the world in the name of the Christian God as their ultimate destiny), but Byzantium shouldn't need to hold any specific Western title because it legally is the Roman Empire.

It is question of points of views really (history is written by the winners!) IMHO Byzantium is not the (Eastern) Roman Empire anymore in the CK2 timeline, it changed culture (Greek), form of Government (no more the illusion to be a Republic headed by an Imperator but an open Despotic Monarchy... ruled by a "King" a concept abhorrent for the true Romans!), he lost too much territory and in the end a women ruled as Basilissa (Queen) so the throne was effectively vacant when the Pope crowned Charlemagne!
Indeed in my mod it is declared a successor state of the Eastern Roman Empire the more prestigious of the States and the one destined to reform the Eastern Roman Empire and then finally to reclaim the West and restore the Roman Empire in his full glory but a successor state not so different from the Holy Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire never fell, it just moved to the east and then shrank in the face of its enemies. The only thing Byzantium should need to do to reform the classical Roman Empire is reconquer the West. The idea here is not that Byzantium is claiming to be a new Roman Empire (As I said previously, it already is the Roman Empire), it's forcing the barbarians to recognise its rightful claim. The "Reform the Roman Empire" decision for Byzantium in LoR doesn't create a new empire (Game-wise it does, but we're ignoring that), it merely forces the West to recognise Byzantium as the classical Roman Empire.

From the point of view of said "Barbarians" the Roman Empire was a dying carcass from centuries with too "contempt" of themselves the Romans from the mighty warriors of a time became now too soft to fight and forced to use the same "Barbarians" as legionaries. In the end the so called "Middle Ages" was not so bad: they shake the things a bit...

By the way Charlemagne was not an usurper but he had any right to be the Roman Emperor as he conquered the crown fighting as the Emperors that were not because he was son of someone, the Pope simply recognized the fact accomplished.
It is for this the "Holy Roman Empire" will be considered, in The Empires of God, the rightful successor of the (Western) Roman Empire with the full right to reform WRE and if it reconquers the East (as Byzantium or Latin Empire) he has the full right to recreate the Roman Empire... for sure I need to change all the localizations speaking of "Barbarians that burned at their touch" for something that show honor in their... because the story is written by the winners, right?

For the fact that Byzantium / ERE need a title in the west is actually a mod mechanic that could be seen as a forcing a path too much, maybe I could change it with the fact the ruler of the reformed ERE is automatically the pretender of WRE and vice versa, what do you think?

 

[omega20056]

What I mean is that "Basileus" was the official title of the emperors of Constantinople and Trebizond, while "Autokrator" was an honorific like "Imperator" and all other independent Greek rulers used "Despot" as their title, which was the Byzantine equivalent of "king" (In that they were technically a self-sufficient ruler). Using "basileus" for anything other than a Greek empire doesn't make sense because it meant "emperor" during the middle ages, not "king" as it had during Alexander's time. Using "high king" doesn't make sense for Byzantium either because they never considered themselves mere kings. They were autocratic monarchs, yes, but the distinction with the "lesser" kings of old Rome was maintained.

Charlemagne was never the successor to the Western Roman Empire, the Pope intended to crown him as the sole Roman Emperor. The Pope considered the Roman throne vacant because Irene was a woman, and so crowned Charlemagne as her successor. He was meant to be the de jure emperor of both his Frankish lands and Byzantium, not a reborn Western Empire. Legally, he was an emperor, but he was never a Roman Emperor, because the Pope had no authority over the title. Emperor Zeno had legally abolished the division between the East and the West in 480 with the consent of the Roman Senate. The only person who could legally appoint another emperor in the West was the Byzantine Emperor, and they never did.

To restore the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Emeror shouldn't need to hold anything more than the territories the vanilla decision stipulates, because all his is doing is forcing the West to recognise his title. Restoring the Western Roman Empire should only be possible if you are a member of the Latin or Iberian culture group, control at least Spain, Gaul, and Italy, and have +100 relations with the Byzantine Emperor. You are petitioning him to restore the empire in the West, essentially. Without his consent, you can never become the Western Roman Emperor, you'll just be a pretender like Charlemagne was.

Under no circumstances should the Holy Roman Empire be able to restore the Roman Empire while Byzantium still exists, that wouldn't make any sense. On the other hand, Byzantium shouldn't be able to restore the Western Roman Empire at all, it doesn't make sense to appoint another emperor to rule land that you fought tooth and nail to reclaim. It wouldn't make any sense for the Holy Roman Empire to restore the Western Roman Empire either, because it's a Germanic state that attempted to usurp the Byzantine Emperor's title. It has no claim to the title of Roman Emperor other than the Pope's backing, and that means nothing legally. For these same reasons, I'd argue that the Holy Roman Empire shouldn't be able to even restore the Roman Empire.

This is how it works in my mod: the two de jure empires for most of the game are the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire. The Holy Roman Empire becomes de jure by 1066 because it was legally an empire (Though not the Roman Empire). In my mod, you'll be able to restore the Western Roman Empire if you satisfy the conditions I posted above (Be either Latin or Iberian, control Spain, ect.) and the Holy Roman Empire has never been formed. The Western Roman Empire is locked out if the Holy Roman Empire has ever existed, because Charlmagne and the Pope have attempted to usurp the title of Roman Emperor. The only way Charlemagne could have become the de jure Western Roman Emperor would be to request the title from the Byzantine Emperor, and he didn't.

 

[fanoI]

What I mean is that "Basileus" was the official title of the emperors of Constantinople and Trebizond, while "Autokrator" was an honorific like "Imperator" and all other independent Greek rulers used "Despot" as their title, which was the Byzantine equivalent of "king" (In that they were technically a self-sufficient ruler). Using "basileus" for anything other than a Greek empire doesn't make sense because it meant "emperor" during the middle ages, not "king" as it had during Alexander's time. Using "high king" doesn't make sense for Byzantium either because they never considered themselves mere kings. They were autocratic monarchs, yes, but the distinction with the "lesser" kings of old Rome was maintained.

In any case I can change the title Basileus for not not Roman Pretender Empires to Despot if this will sound so wrong (probably would) and thinking of it well negate a little the concept that only some Empires have the Imperial dignity and the others are mere (High) Kings, so to be clear an Othodox ruler that creates the (High) Kingdom of Aegyptus (Egypt, Nibia, Jerusalem and Siria) will be called a Despot.
If you have other suggestions for a different title I'm happy to know but I'm not aware of an historical case in which this happened and I suspect that if it happened they would have tried to claim to be the Successor State of the Roman Empire and so they would have used the term "Basileus" in any case.

Charlemagne was never the successor to the Western Roman Empire, the Pope intended to crown him as the sole Roman Emperor. The Pope considered the Roman throne vacant because Irene was a woman, and so crowned Charlemagne as her successor. He was meant to be the de jure emperor of both his Frankish lands and Byzantium, not a reborn Western Empire. Legally, he was an emperor, but he was never a Roman Emperor, because the Pope had no authority over the title.

Yes this what happened from our point of view of powerful men of the future but I when play CK2 try to convince myself to be a men of that age and country so if I play as Byzantium I am the sole heir of Rome and the Holy Roman Emperor is simply an usurper, when I play as the Holy roman Emperor I think that the "Donation of Constantine" was not a fake and that Byzantium is illegitimate and no more the Roman Empire (the Empire of the Greeks) and that for this I have the right to restore the Roman Empire (and this right will be given in "the Empires of God" if some specials conditions will be met) but if I'm one of the last Romans on Rome that revolted against the Pope and formed "The Commune of Rome" and then "S.P.Q.R." well I see the Germans as usurpers so as the Byzantines (because Greek and a Monarchy) and and that for this I have the right to restore the Roman Empire (and this right will be given in "the Empires of God" if some specials conditions will be met).

Emperor Zeno had legally abolished the division between the East and the West in 480 with the consent of the Roman Senate. The only person who could legally appoint another emperor in the West was the Byzantine Emperor, and they never did.

This is not correct for example Otto I was recognized as (Western) Roman Emperor from the Eastern one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_I,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

Finally recognizing Otto's imperial title, the new eastern emperor sent his niece Theophanu to Rome in 972, and she married Otto II on 14 April 972.[109] As part of this rapprochement, the conflict over southern Italy was finally resolved: the Byzantine Empire accepted Otto's dominion over the principalities of Capua, Benevento and Salerno; in return the German Emperor retreated from the Byzantine possessions in Apulia and Calabria.[109]

So from that point on the Holy Roman Empire was effectively a Roman Empire!

To restore the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Emeror shouldn't need to hold anything more than the territories the vanilla decision stipulates, because all his is doing is forcing the West to recognise his title.

Well this in "The Empires of God" will change because in any case to create the Eastern Roman Empire (that it is not the same thing of Byzantium) you need three Imperial titles (Byzantium / Empire of Hellass, Illiria and Aegyptus) see this in this way: as in the East itself a lot of pretender arised (Bulgaria for first) Byzantium shall show to them before to be the true Eastern Roman Emperor and only after this it will have the right to claim the West.

Restoring the Western Roman Empire should only be possible if you are a member of the Latin or Iberian culture group, control at least Spain, Gaul, and Italy, and have +100 relations with the Byzantine Emperor. You are petitioning him to restore the empire in the West, essentially. Without his consent, you can never become the Western Roman Emperor, you'll just be a pretender like Charlemagne was.
Under no circumstances should the Holy Roman Empire be able to restore the Roman Empire while Byzantium still exists, that wouldn't make any sense. On the other hand, Byzantium shouldn't be able to restore the Western Roman Empire at all, it doesn't make sense to appoint another emperor to rule land that you fought tooth and nail to reclaim. It wouldn't make any sense for the Holy Roman Empire to restore the Western Roman Empire either, because it's a Germanic state that attempted to usurp the Byzantine Emperor's title. It has no claim to the title of Roman Emperor other than the Pope's backing, and that means nothing legally. For these same reasons, I'd argue that the Holy Roman Empire shouldn't be able to even restore the Roman Empire.

In my opinion the "Barbarian" Franks / Germans thanks to their might had this right too! Charlemagne, Otto I, Fredrick Barbarossa, Carlo V Hapsburg were Roman Emperors and playing as them I want to have a legal way to restore the Roman Empire without forcing things as getting the title of the dying Empire in the East.

This is how it works in my mod: the two de jure empires for most of the game are the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire. The Holy Roman Empire becomes de jure by 1066 because it was legally an empire (Though not the Roman Empire). In my mod, you'll be able to restore the Western Roman Empire if you satisfy the conditions I posted above (Be either Latin or Iberian, control Spain, ect.) and the Holy Roman Empire has never been formed. The Western Roman Empire is locked out if the Holy Roman Empire has ever existed, because Charlmagne and the Pope have attempted to usurp the title of Roman Emperor. The only way Charlemagne could have become the de jure Western Roman Emperor would be to request the title from the Byzantine Emperor, and he didn't.

In "The Empires of God" things will be different and more "dynamic" first you should have to be recognized as the rightful successor of the Western and Eastern Roman Emperors (at game start this characters are the holders of the Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire) and you get the decision to restore the two half of the Empire and having all the two you could restore the Imperium. But other characters will have the pretense to be the rightful successor as historically happened, for example:

1. The Bulgarian Emperors
2. The Serbian Emperors
3. The Trebizond Emperors
4. The Latin Emperors (probably in 1204 controlling Constantinople itself they will be not simply pretenders)
5. The Emperor of S.P.Q.R. (OK this not happened historically but if "The Commune of Rome" would have luck it could have happened)

and these characters after taking the right to be successors by force for now (in future I have to find a way to do this in case of extinction of the rightful title) will have the possibility to create the half of the Empire.

 

[omega20056]

Using despot would be correct for any feudal Greek kingdom. You could use autarch (Self-ruler) but it's so archaic that it was never historically used. There's regas, the direct Greek translation of the Latin rex, but it was only used when referring to foreign kings.

From a role-playing point of view, restoring the Roman Empire as the Holy Roman Empire, the Latin Empire, or the Commune of Rome would be correct. My view on this is very conservative, so to speak, but then I'm a history student, so that's to be expected I suppose. Historically, it wouldn't make sense for the Holy Roman Empire to restore the Roman Empire, but gameplay wise, it would, so I'll concede on this point. The same goes for Bulgaria trying to claim Byzantium, which has some historical backing (I think it was Simeon I who crowned himself Tsar of the Bulgarians and the Romans).

While you are correct in that the Byzantines did recognise Otto's title, they did not accept him as a Roman Emperor. They recognised his imperial status as an emperor in Rome, but not that he was a Roman Emperor (The difference being that Otto was an emperor who just so happened to control Rome, while John was a Roman Emperor).

 

[fanoI]

Developer Diary #1: The Conference of Peace

As you have read on the mod introduction I have introduced a new event chain called "The Conference of Peace" that happens as result of the victory of the pretender to be successor state of the Western / Eastern Roman Empire against the rightful successor state.
In this Conference of Peace all the interested characters will be invited and the border of the States of Europe will be redrawn: new state will be born, provinces will change hands and so on...

This one of the possible results of "The Conference of Peace":

A part for the obvious thing that there is no Holy Roman Empire anymore you will see that the Northern Italian Provinces (Kingdom of Lombardia / Italia or Roman Republic if you prefer) are part of S.P.Q.R., an independent Republic of Burgundy with a ruler of Roman culture (a Roman Client Kingdom?) and, finally, Bohemia has its independence!

But follow it from the start:

we invite the Emperor of The Holy Roman Empire first, then:

he obviously accepts and so we invite the Pope:

the Pope accepts too:

so we call all the independent characters (not second their rank as I wanted... I have tried badly to accomplish this but the game prefers to call them in random order! So the description is only a pretension sadly...):

these characters could accept or not but some character, as the King of France / (High) King of Francia, could have a special political interest to join the conference I show here only a response here the one of the first character that answers:

After these types of characters the Princes of the Holy Roman will be called:

again these characters can decide if join the Conference or not (but for some of them will be not a real choice...).

Finally the Conference of Peace begins and the first issue will be raised by yourself:

The abominations ends:

Do you notice the finesse that the King of Germania does not wear an Imperial crown but has the pink ring, right? He is one of the famous High Kings now! And the Pretender to be successor state of The Western Roman Empire, too!

The Byzantine Emperor - that likes to call himself Basilieus Autokrator - seems to be happy of this decision too:

Then it is the time to other issues that are raised by the member of the Conference themselves they could happen dynamically (for example if the King of France has not joined the issue of Burgundy will not exist) and, for now, are these:

1. The Princes of the former Holy Roman Empire in the Kingdom of Italy (or Roman Republic) should be part yet part of the Kingdom of Germania, be annexed to the S.P.Q.R. or should they become independent?
2. The Princes of the former Holy Roman Empire in the Kingdom of Burgundy should be yet part of the Kingdom of Germania, be annexed to France, be annexed to the S.P.Q.R. or should they become independent?
3. The Princes of the former Holy Roman Empire in the Kingdom of Bohemia should become independent?

Let's follow the first issue:

the first decision is the more simple and obvious right? Yes but, has you have called "The Conference of Peace" the Princes expected to have a collegial decision and they will be not happy that you, in the end, simply decide to annex them!

So you get a lot of hating vassals as result:

If, instead you make them vote, they will love you but the borders of Italy will become horrendous as IA, being a computer, regrets logic

This, by the way the result of the first option:

Now we press the second option: you receive the result of the vote of any Prince of the Empire that held a title in Italy being them de jure and the hold titles in Italy via vassals (they are considered holder of "Unlawful Imperial Territory" do this remember something?).

The (High) King of Germania decides to return back the unlawful Imperial Territory:

... this other character that hold land in Italy lawfully decided to become a vassal voluntary:

But the Doge of Lombardy will not accept to bear in submission because it is a Republic, a Republic that recognizes [lit. 'recognizing'] no superior (Motto of The Most Serene Republic of Genoa)!

Some vassal prefers to remain with their former liege using a contract as excuse:

When all ends you get your regard to have made them vote:

(and thanks to the Gods IA has chosen wisely and the map is not so horrendous as it could! In my tests I preferred to become blind sometimes ).

The next issue is raised by the Duke of Bohemia and Moravia:

in this case there is no need to discuss anything there is no reason anymore that princes be vassals of Germania: Bohemia shall become independent!

And indeed it does, as an homage, the Pope gives a crown to the Duke of Bohemia for free:

in the end the King of France wants to voice the opinion of the Princes of Burgundy only because he is a good soul probably:

in this case there are two more options at your disposal:

1. The "right" thing Burgundy should be part of France and so you concede it to them
2. A more compromise solution: create an independent Most Serene Republic of Burgundy that will be, in reality, a client state (a puppet). Beware that there is no mechanic yet for these puppet states yet.

Let's see only what happens after the first option is taken (the result of the second is in the first screenshot):

The Big Blue Blob! Oh my Gods

Finally all ends:

This event chain is yet a little "static" it works only for S.P.QR. but, in theory, the King of Germania has now enabled the casus belli and could declare war on who usurped is title of "Successor State of the Western Roman Empire" and the Byzantines if they could reform the Eastern Roman Empire should have the possibility to call "The Conference of Peace", too!
But for the first alpha release it will be OK...

An analogous "Conference of Peace" will be created for the Pretenders to be Successor of ERE (Bulgaria, Serbia, Latin Empire, Empire of Nicaea) in the East.

Thanks for your attention and if you have any question regarding this developer diary feel free to ask.

 

[fanoI]

The first question is myself that do to you my readers: what could be done with the client state of Burgundy? I'm unsure that it is historical: yes the Romans had Client Kingdoms but maybe it is too much a stretch to put a Roman in charge of it?
In the end they maintained their king to make feel the illusion to be independent...
I have done it for "fun" and because in that moment, for strange reason, Provence were held by the King of Aragon (Paradox has cheated making a copy of the same character to not show this! A thing this that I shall remember to rectify in next versions!) and I don't liked that the Serene Doge and all Patricians had Aragonese culture only for this...

These are some of my possible ideas:

1. Instead of Burgundy I could create a sort of Anti - France called "Prefecture of Gallia", a state that in any case could be created instead of Francia when all the territory of that (High) Kingdom will be annexed by one of the Roman Empires
2. If this is a Roman Prefecture should have a mercenary company as vassal "Legio Gallica"
3. It could have de jure CB on all Francia? Or it could make the game too much easy? Maybe the CB could be mutual for France / Francia?
4. The puppeteer should be allied with this state and called in any defensive / offensive war
5. The puppeteer could annex always the state via decision

Do you have other ideas / suggestions?

 

[fanoI]

Finally after (too) much talking the first alpha release is ready!
This more a teaser that a real release: I expect a lot of bugs and a lot of thing, obviously, are not finished but, in any case, it should be permit to restore WRE, ERE and the Roman Empire as HRE, S.P.Q.R or Byzantium maybe using "gamey" tactics.

Get it here.

I'm waiting your comments.

 

[DKM]

The first question is myself that do to you my readers: what could be done with the client state of Burgundy? I'm unsure that it is historical: yes the Romans had Client Kingdoms but maybe it is too much a stretch to put a Roman in charge of it?
In the end they maintained their king to make feel the illusion to be independent...
I have done it for "fun" and because in that moment, for strange reason, Provence were held by the King of Aragon (Paradox has cheated making a copy of the same character to not show this! A thing this that I shall remember to rectify in next versions!) and I don't liked that the Serene Doge and all Patricians had Aragonese culture only for this...

These are some of my possible ideas:

1. Instead of Burgundy I could create a sort of Anti - France called "Prefecture of Gallia", a state that in any case could be created instead of Francia when all the territory of that (High) Kingdom will be annexed by one of the Roman Empires
2. If this is a Roman Prefecture should have a mercenary company as vassal "Legio Gallica"
3. It could have de jure CB on all Francia? Or it could make the game too much easy? Maybe the CB could be mutual for France / Francia?
4. The puppeteer should be allied with this state and called in any defensive / offensive war
5. The puppeteer could annex always the state via decision

Do you have other ideas / suggestions?

Before I suggest anything, I wish to know how historically plausible would you want the suggestions to be?

 

[fanoI]

Well "The Empires of God" shares my idea / philosophy of "The History is circular" the fact to create a "sister" Republic is indeed a concept that Napoleon take from the Roman's Client States but I see the "Commune of Rome" as a sort of revolutionary state if they were successful the French Revolution could have happened a lot of centuries before (in particular the III Republic the one with Cola di Rienzo) so what they would have done with Burgundy?

The concept of re-create the Prefectures instead of the (High) Kingdoms of Francia, Hispania, Britannia and so on could be seen not historical from our point of view but what a resurgent S.P.Q.R. / Roman Empire would have done? I'm imagining that they would have tried to restore the Roman Administration (there will be resistance from the feudataries that will be dispossessed of their land for sure!).

By the way have you downloaded the alpha version? I expect our and others comments.

 

[omega20056]

Could I use a few graphics from your mod? I really like that Roman flag.

 

[fanoI]

Sure that you can! Please notice that practically nothing of graphic is done by myself the S.P.Q.R / W.R.E. flag, if I remember correctly, was realized by AnaxXiphos specifically for "The Commune of Rome";‎ I don't how the "sub licensing" works: it is sufficient to credit the mod for which the work was realized or the real author should be credited?

By the way regarding the ulterior division of the Byzantine Empire I have seen that in my titles I had an "Hing Kingdom of Asia" but I added a comment "maintained titular because it is the core territory of the Byzantine Empire" but I could make it de jure after 1204 to simulate another point of decadence of the Byzantine Empire?

Surely a special CB will be needed to help Byzantium to reconquer the ERE territory.

 

[fanoI]

I posted the alpha 0.0.1 in Moddb and I can see that it had 150 downloads! What I can say? Thank you!

I'm a lot proud of it and "The Empires of God" continue to be the first in the list of mod for CKII (probably because no one else has published nothing after me but let's keep the illusion ).
The strange thing is that no one of these 150 guys that downloaded the mod posted here so the mod seems dead and abandoned... maybe I'm pessimistic and is so fun and without bug that you are so occupied to play it that you do not have the time to comment here?

However I'm working on the alpha 0.0.2 this could be a tentative change log:

1. The files in landed titles are now in the order I wanted this is more an aestetical thing but some titles required that another was defined before it to be creatable and now it works as attended
2. The Eastern Roman Emperor now gets the trait to be the Pretender Successor State of the Western Roman Empire and he has access to the specific casus belli against the "rightful" Successor State
3. The Western / Eastern Roman Empire decisions need to have vassalized the Pope / Echumenical Patriarch, a part of me is thinking that one should have the Religious Head always as his vassal (or better be a Religious Head)... we are speaking of "The Empires of God", right?
   
4. I'll add some tool tips to hide the details of complex decisions / events

Let's see if I can release this new alpha today...

 

[CaptainHandsome]

Hey! This idea is great, I especially love the "Conference of Peace." I've always wanted something of that sort in the game, because I felt the peace treaty system was very wanton and boring, in-game, my biggest complaint by far. A massive, huge, world-powered war should dramatically (and often did dramatically) change the very shape of Europe. Not just one tiny county. That was often the catalyst, but the treaties rarely had anything, or much, to do with it by the end.

So, bravo on the "Conference of Peace," if you take that idea and run with it, as well as the rest, it should be awesome.

I'll be commenting more, hopefully, as I read in more detail! I'll also download it and play it, although there's some things between me and that, for the moment.

 

[fanoI]

Hey! This idea is great, I especially love the "Conference of Peace." I've always wanted something of that sort in the game, because I felt the peace treaty system was very wanton and boring, in-game, my biggest complaint by far. A massive, huge, world-powered war should dramatically (and often did dramatically) change the very shape of Europe. Not just one tiny county. That was often the catalyst, but the treaties rarely had anything, or much, to do with it by the end.

Please note, that for now, the "Conference of Peace" is linked to a specific CB that is the one to decide who is the rightful Successor State to Western / Eastern Roman Empire; I have done it because after that event the map of Europe would have not sense anymore:

1. There was an Holy Roman Empire but having it lost the right to be the Successor of WRE it cannot be called so anymore! I have decided to call it Germania...
2. At that point Germania would controlled lands that being no the Empire anymore have no right to control (North Italy / Lombardy, Burgundy and Bohemia)

I have more ambitious ideas on the "Conference of Peace" but in the end I've seen that it is really difficult to model it well because the game has not mechanics to do this (for example being a Conference the Princes of the Empire can vote on their fate... well doing this was a nightmare!).
Yesterday tried to modify the event chain if the war was between Eastern Roman Empire and HRE but I had strange difficult to find the de jure vassals of the Kingdom of Italy / Lombardy!

So, bravo on the "Conference of Peace," if you take that idea and run with it, as well as the rest, it should be awesome.

Sure I continue with the "Conference of Peace" idea but I have a lot more!
I am waiting impatiently "The Horse Lords" not for the f*cking mongols but for the promised moddable governments I hope to make the historical Italian Communes!
On the other hand I expect that with the new DLC the mod will start to crash as usual

I'll be commenting more, hopefully, as I read in more detail! I'll also download it and play it, although there's some things between me and that, for the moment.

Take your time my friend...

 

[fanoI]

As you have noticed I cannot release alpha 0.0.2 the last week but not despair because now is the time!

This the change log:

- The Eastern Roman Empire after being formed obtains an Event in which is
declared "Pretender Successor State of W.R.E" after this it gets access to
specific casus belli and access to "The Conference of Peace"
- Modified "The Conference of Peace" event chain to make it more generic and usable by the Eastern Roman Empire
- The landed titles are now ordered in a logical way (e_rebels and e_pirates
readded maybe someone has not "The Old Gods"?)
- Restored decision "Lateran Teatry" for S.P.Q.R.
- Added icons for the traits "Successor State of WRE" and "Successor State of
ERE" and the corresponding pretenders traits.
- Called the Empires generically "High Kingdoms" and the holder "High Kings"
with specific localizations exceptions
- Added custom tooltips to simplify the text of some decisions

And this is the ModDB link:


Enjoy and let me know your impressions!

 

[hiigara128]

I can't seem to get any of the events to trigger. For example, coronations. Should that be under decisions or does it trigger on its own? Same of the the other events, like creating the WRE. Is there errors in the mod or have I installed it wrong?

 

[fanoI]

The Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor is in two step:

1. You should take the decision to become King of Germany
2. You should take the decision to be crowned by the Pope as Holy Roman Emperor and the event chain should start

For now there are no other coronations events present they will be in future. The events after WRE is formed should be present (at least in my development version I fear GitHub has created a broken release!).

If you have downloaded the version 0.0.2 yes there was the wrong .mod file (I'm surprised it loaded too!) and I've realeased the version 0.0.2.1 tonight to fix this issue.

This the link to the correct version:



Please let me know if there are other problems.