Deus Vult Improvement Pack - Discussion

[Calgacus]

Sorry, but it seems my english is not good enough:
You mean f.e. that it should remain Basileios, instead of greek-pronounciation Vasileios?

I think you should use a consistent system of transliteration for the whole list, independently of what that system produces.

 

[crusaderking]

hey jordarkelf
guess u should know this. in 1187, richard lion heart was duke of aquitaine and gascony while eleanor of aquitaine was held prisoner (well, u could just put him in henry ii's court) also next time when i come online (i dont know when i will be able to come), i will post some changes to the 1187 scenario characters.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

hey jordarkelf
guess u should know this. in 1187, richard lion heart was duke of aquitaine and gascony while eleanor of aquitaine was held prisoner (well, u could just put him in henry ii's court) also next time when i come online (i dont know when i will be able to come), i will post some changes to the 1187 scenario characters.

That's known, but Jordarkelf and Drachenfire have choosen to make Eleanor the duchess none the less.

There is no way to simulate her being a prisoner

 

[Drachenfire]

That's known, but Jordarkelf and Drachenfire have choosen to make Eleanor the duchess none the less.

There is no way to simulate her being a prisoner

Yes, she was prisioner, but still Hereditary Duchess of the Aquitaine, never did she surrender her rights there. Her son was her regent, and in the tradition of the day made 'duke' of Aquitaine as her her. In France, the king's heir was simularly crowned as co-king, but did not rule. In a sense, Rhichard, Eleanor's favorite, was co-duke with his mother in a simular sense, but did rule as his mother was held prisioner by his father.

Another issue was that the AI king of England, Henry FitzEmpress, always made his wife duchess of some other forgettable province somewhere else anyway... so it is more historical to have her in the Aqutaine.

By the way... in the 1066 scenario the capital of the Aquitaine should be Poitou, but for some strange reason it was switched to Bordeaux. But the d'Aquitaine family held residence primarily in Poitou for generations.
We have the Poitier dynasty listed as the d'Aquitaine dynasty... but they were counts of Poitou, then Duke of the Aquataine.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

By the way... in the 1066 scenario the capital of the Aquitaine should be Poitou, but for some strange reason it was switched to Bordeaux. But the d'Aquitaine family held residence primarily in Poitou for generations.

There is no strange reason at all

Poitou isn't in the duchy of Aquitaine, it is in the duchy of Poitou

Bordeaux is in the duchy of Aquitaine and since their primary title is duchy of Aquitaine, their capital is Bordeaux

If you change their primary title to duke of Poitou then their capital will be Poitou

 

[Drachenfire]

There is no strange reason at all

Poitou isn't in the duchy of Aquitaine, it is in the duchy of Poitou

Bordeaux is in the duchy of Aquitaine and since their primary title is duchy of Aquitaine, their capital is Bordeaux

If you change their primary title to duke of Poitou then their capital will be Poitou

*nod* I see, yes.

... wait, then shouldnt Duchy of Poitou then be Duchy of Aquitaine, and what is currently Duchy of Aquitaine be Duchy of Gascony? It seems that for some reason DV confused the middle ages Duchy of Aquitaine, based in Poitou, with the modern regional location of Gascony.... which during the CK time frame was the Duchy of Gascony, according to the map on Wiki anyway. It seems whome-ever recommended that Gascony be the Aquitaine confused it with the modern administrative district of Aquitaine.

A simple recommendation would be to reverse these duchies, in my opinion.

snap! Currently what is listed as Duchy of Aquitaine is Bordeaux! lol. Cute!

This region was part of the County of Bordeaux, and part of the Duchy of Gascony. Angouleme should go to POIT, which should be the Aquitaine, but I dont know what to do yet with Perigord and Agen. Prehaps to Gascony?

You may save a Duchy tag here.

 

[Drachenfire]

Furthermore,

I recommend that king Henry II FitzEmpress have his capital in Angers, Anjou, the historic capital of the Angivine rulers. According to most historians, Henry II did not spend that much time in England at all... and in 1187 was not in England.

In 1187, currently in CK, Anjou is ruled by Bouchard de Preuilly.


But this is not a major issue for me, and will only recommend it this one time.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Furthermore,

I recommend that king Henry II FitzEmpress have his capital in Angers, Anjou, the historic capital of the Angivine rulers. According to most historians, Henry II did not spend that much time in England at all... and in 1187 was not in England.

In 1187, currently in CK, Anjou is ruled by Bouchard de Preuilly.


But this is not a major issue for me, and will only recommend it this one time.

Can only be done by removing all English counties from his demesne. And that is not something you want to do

... wait, then shouldnt Duchy of Poitou then be Duchy of Aquitaine, and what is currently Duchy of Aquitaine be Duchy of Gascony? It seems that for some reason DV confused the middle ages

They didn't confuse it. They wanted both the duchy of Poitou in and the duchy of Aquitaine. So this became the compromise

EDIT

Henry II did not spend that much time in England at all... and in 1187 was not in England.

According to my sources Henry spent Christmas 1186 and New Year 1187 in England. He left England on January 17th 1187 for Normandy.

 

[Drachenfire]

what was the justification for a Duchy of Poitou? I could only find evidence of a county of Poitou, which was merged with the Duchy of Aquitaine by at lest the start of the 10th cenury.. Did this break up solve some other issue we are unaware of? The title Count of Poitou seems to have been traditionally bestowed upon the heir of the duchy.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

what was the justification for a Duchy of Poitou? I could only find evidence of a county of Poitou, which was merged with the Duchy of Aquitaine by at lest the start of the 10th cenury.. Did this break up solve some other issue we are unaware of? The title Count of Poitou seems to have been traditionally bestowed upon the heir of the duchy.

The county of Poitou was an important county, which in CK makes it a duchy. Just like Toulouse, Flanders, Champagne, Holland and Barcelona f.e. which all were never a duchy

 

[unmerged(52706)]

I think you should use a consistent system of transliteration for the whole list, independently of what that system produces.

Done!

 

[crusaderking]

here is the character of henry ii

character = {
id = { type = 10 id = 4500 }
name = "Henry FitzEmpress" # II
gender = male
dynasty = { type = 12 id = 369 }
father = { type = 10 id = 4506 }
mother = { type = 10 id = 2991 }
country = ENGL
religion = catholic
culture = english #Gameplay fix
score = { gold = 100 prestige = 100 piety = 100 }
birthdate = { year = 1133 month = may day = 3 }
dna = "58306377481290"
attributes = {
martial = 7
diplomacy = 4
intrigue = 8
stewardship = 6
health = 4
fertility = 7
}
traits = {
lustful = yes
reckless = yes
cruel = yes
amiable = yes
charismatic_negotiator = yes
energetic = yes
generous = yes
stressed = yes
indulgent = yes
modest = yes
just = yes
wise = yes
}
}

that of richard i

character = {
id = { type = 10 id = 4510 }
name = "Richard Lionheart"
gender = male
dynasty = { type = 12 id = 369 }
father = { type = 10 id = 4500 }
mother = { type = 10 id = 5730 }
country = BORD
religion = catholic
culture = english
score = { gold = 125 prestige = 100 piety = 100 }
birthdate = { year = 1157 month = september day = 8 }
dna = "31641509300616"
attributes = {
martial = 6
diplomacy = 6
intrigue = 6
stewardship = 6
health = 4
fertility = 6
}
loyalty = 0.100
traits = {
celibate = yes
vengeful = yes
valorous = yes
brilliant_strategist = yes
crusader = yes
reckless = yes
cruel = yes
energetic = yes
rebellious = yes
}
}

that of john

character = {
id = { type = 10 id = 4514 }
name = "John Lackland"
gender = male
dynasty = { type = 12 id = 369 }
father = { type = 10 id = 4500 }
mother = { type = 10 id = 5730 }
country = MEAT
religion = catholic
culture = english
score = { gold = 75 prestige = 100 piety = 100 }
birthdate = { year = 1167 month = december day = 24 }
dna = "57351040590286"
attributes = {
martial = 4
diplomacy = 2
intrigue = 7
stewardship = 6
health = 4
fertility = 4
}
traits = {
energetic = yes
selfish = yes
deceitful = yes
cruel = yes
brilliant_strategist = yes
suspicious = yes
vengeful = yes
rebellious = yes
valorous = yes
energetic = yes
hostile = yes
just = yes
}
}

eleanor of aquitaine

character = {
id = { type = 10 id = 5730 }
name = "Alienor"
gender = female
dynasty = { type = 12 id = 740 }
father = { type = 10 id = 5731 }
mother = { type = 10 id = 5732 }
country = ENGL
religion = catholic
culture = Frankish
birthdate = { year = 1122 month = january day = 1 }
dna = "14183941723207"
attributes = {
martial = 5
diplomacy = 8
intrigue = 7
stewardship = 7
health = 8
fertility = 8
}
traits = {
energetic = yes
just = yes
modest = yes
wise = yes
valorous = yes
illusive_shadow = yes
}
}

sources
wikipedia
britannnica
kings and queens of england

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

John Lackland a brilliant strategist ? What is your basis for this ? His military record is far from brilliant. Also why is he rebellious ? He didn't rebel against his father.


Also characters can't be reckless and wise, those are two opposing traits

And Alienor should have occitan culture and she was not a modest woman, she was a very remarkable and outspoken woman

 

[Drachenfire]

}
character = {
id = { type = 10 id = 4510 }
name = "Richard Lionheart"
gender = male
dynasty = { type = 12 id = 369 }
father = { type = 10 id = 4500 }
mother = { type = 10 id = 5730 }
country = BORD
religion = catholic
culture = english
score = { gold = 125 prestige = 100 piety = 100 }
birthdate = { year = 1157 month = september day = 8 }
dna = "31641509300616"
attributes = {
martial = 6
diplomacy = 6
intrigue = 6
stewardship = 6
health = 4
fertility = 6
}
loyalty = 0.100
traits = {
celibate = yes
vengeful = yes
valorous = yes
brilliant_strategist = yes
crusader = yes
reckless = yes
cruel = yes
energetic = yes
rebellious = yes
[COLOR=Yellow]homosexual = yes[/COLOR]  ;) 
}
}

Why are you relisting these characters Crusader? Are we adjusting them somehow? I thought they were already well represented in DVIP.

Jord:
Except: I do recommend a rivalry between Eleanor of Aquitaine and her husband, Henry Fitzempress. And also possibly an allience between her and her son Richard, that is between duchy of Aquitaine (Eleanor) and Gascony (Richard). And Maybe a friendship and allience between Rhichard and Phillip II of France.

 

[unmerged(111886)]

Norway

Question:

- About the Norwegian royal family.

1) In the game, Harald Hardrada has 5 children - 3 daughters by his Rus wife Elizabeth whom he "married" while in exile in Kiev, and 2 sons by Thora (Magnus and Olav).

According to every source I could find, Harald had only 2 daughters who were born well after his 2 sons. Harald died on 23SEP66 and one of his daughters died 2 days later. This is properly represented.

So... who the hell is Ragnhild Maria Haraldsdottir Yingling ???? She starts the game at 16 years of age and married to the Duke of the Western Isles. She is shown to be the daughter of Elizabeth.

2) Additionally, the Rus chick Elizabeth is shown in game as having died in 1050, yet she gives birth to her two daughters 10 and 13 years after death. Pretty miraculous on the one hand and super kinky on the other, if you're into that sort of thing. Now, I understand why they "killed" her, because the game makes no provisions for having 2 living wives. But is there no better way to represent her? How about having her as a courtier and removing the marriage relationship. This would better reflect the reality of the situation. I mean, there is no death date I could find for either Thora or Elizabeth, but I'm pretty certain that Eliz had to be alive to conceive and give birth.

3) Another minor point, Thora was born in 1025, not 1017. She went off to marry Svend the King of Denmark (the one at the start) after Harald died, and I found one source that stated that they had a child together, which would not be possible if Thora starts the game at 49 years old.

4) I'd also recommend removing the intestinal worm trait from Magnus. All accounts I could find suggested that he died suddenly from an acute illness. Modern theory suggests he died of ergot poisoning. You can eat grain infected by the fungus and not die, and if you continued eating it over a period of time, you would appear to have a chronic disease, but all the sources I read say he died rather suddenly. Since you're doing away with death dates and allowing people to die either from events or old age, then maybe the intestinal worm trait should go as well.

5) I'd also remove the selfish trait from Magnus and give him generous instead. Why? Because Magnus agreed - without being forced to agree - to share the rule of Norway with his younger brother, Olaf. Additionally, he gave his brother the better part of the kingdom to rule. Hardly the acts of a selfish man.

Regards,
Eikinskjaldi

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

4) I'd also recommend removing the intestinal worm trait from Magnus. All accounts I could find suggested that he died suddenly from an acute illness. Modern theory suggests he died of ergot poisoning. You can eat grain infected by the fungus and not die, and if you continued eating it over a period of time, you would appear to have a chronic disease, but all the sources I read say he died rather suddenly. Since you're doing away with death dates and allowing people to die either from events or old age, then maybe the intestinal worm trait should go as well.

According to the Yngling Saga he died from ringworm disease

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/NORWAY.htm#_ftnref23

Snorre records that King Magnus died "of the ringworm disease" at Nidaros and that he was buried in the same place[335]. Mistress: ---. No information has been identified concerning King Magnus's concubine. King Magnus II had one illegitimate child by his Mistress:

 

[unmerged(111886)]

Thanks Veld! What a great site!

I generally don't use internet sources for information, but rather books. However, that site looks very authentic.

That's a minor point to me, and I'm happy to have Magnus keep his worm. He may die of a random health event as a result which would more accurately reflect his actual death in 1069, so its all good.

What I really want to know is who this Ragnhild chick is?? Any thoughts?

Regards,
Eikinskjaldi

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Thanks Veld! What a great site!

I generally don't use internet sources for information, but rather books. However, that site looks very authentic.

That's a minor point to me, and I'm happy to have Magnus keep his worm. He may die of a random health event as a result which would more accurately reflect his actual death in 1069, so its all good.

What I really want to know is who this Ragnhild chick is?? Any thoughts?

Regards,
Eikinskjaldi

Normally I prefer books about internet-sites to. But this site seems very well informed.

I have no idea who this Ragnhild is, if it was a daughter of Harald Hardrade then finding a source about it shouldn't be that difficult. But since I can't find any sources, I doubt that she is a daughter of him

Maybe Calgacus has some more information about the wife of Godfrid Crovan

 

[ZmajOgnjeniVuk]

Thanks Veld! What a great site!

I generally don't use internet sources for information, but rather books. However, that site looks very authentic.

While their research seem thorough, choices/usage of primary sources can be "controversial" - for example - for Diocleia/Serbia/Bosnia, they use The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, which is largely discarded by historians (at lest in Serbia) as an unreliable source (except for knowledge of local geography, and some texts included in it). Most of the rulers it mentions are considered to be non-historic, yet they are listed on the site.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

While their research seem thorough, choices/usage of primary sources can be "controversial" - for example - for Diocleia/Serbia/Bosnia, they use The Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, which is largely discarded by historians (at lest in Serbia) as an unreliable source (except for knowledge of local geography, and some texts included in it). Most of the rulers it mentions are considered to be non-historic, yet they are listed on the site.

The problem is, that its one of the very few primary source sfor that region/era. The other main sources are mostly Byzantine and those usually don't tell very much about such 'backwaters' as Duklja (backwater for the Byzantines I mean of course)

So you either have to choose 'place-holder' fantasy rulers (based on nothing) or rulers of which there are at least some sources available.