Grand Culture Mod : (Cultures I'd like to see instated)

[Calgacus]

I'll put it up soon...tonight or tomorrow....

Good to hear.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

New maps...both around 450kbs.

Cultures => http://upl.silentwhisper.net/uplfolders/upload2/Cultures.rar

Kingdoms => http://upl.silentwhisper.net/uplfolders/upload6/Kingdoms.rar

Duchy map will wait a bit, I am currently rethinking borders of few duchies and how will I work them out so I'll post it later.

 

[Sera]

Looks nice indeed. The Finish culture looks a little too predominant though (I know it was a compromise, but still... ). When did you say you planned the final release again?

 

[Kujy]

Cool, can't wait for the duchies map, and the ensuing arguments

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Excellent Maps but I'm not too sure about the Kingdom of Wales, it's only five provinces now. Why is Powys part of England? Powys is even Welsh in the Cultural map, it was part of Gwynedd, it's in northern Wales, which is the most Welsh part of Wales!

I'd also make Quena part of Nubia, the Red Sea hills was inhabited by an African people and from the maps I've seen the province is rather awkward, ideally it should be split in two so I guess it could go either way but the valuable gold mines of the Hills where under Nubian rule.

Also Kudos for the Kingdom of Man, really cool idea

 

[Calgacus]

I love the culture map, and I'll definitely use it when it comes out (editing a little bit of course ). I like the other map too, although I'm not too pleased with Arles and Lotharingia, or the absence of Mesopotamia ; Arles I'm gonna rename Burgundy (I understand it was called that, but the HRE uses Burgundy in his titles). Lotharingia's just fictional. The Dukes of Burgundy in the LMA who controlled most of it didn't even conteplate calling themselves Kings of Lotharingia. In fact, several lords controlled the a declarable amount of the area at some point, and it never came up. Anyways, these are just a few ideas I'd put to you regarding the kingdoms:


RE; Kingdom of Man

I'm OK with this, but don't you think "Isles" would be better? As in "Rex Insularum" or "Dominus Insularum" (Lord of the Isles) or "Rí Innse Gall" (King of the Islands of the Foreigners). The Stewart Kings of Scotland called themselves "King of Scotland and the Isles" ... so it could fit with later history. Even Rex Manae et Insularum was used.

RE: Wales

This is just an idea. In my own game, I've replaced Wales with "Britons." Wales (6), Brittany (6) and the West Country (3) count as the area of declarabilty, essentially the Duchies of Cornwall, Britanny, Gwynedd and Deheubarth. The reasoning is three-fold. Firstly, it reflects accurately the ideology of the Britons in the period. Secondly, it makes the Kingdom of Wales more difficult to obtain for the rulers of Gwynedd (they never obtained it). Thirdly, (depending on how it's done) it makes it harder for the King of the English (in later scenarios) to just declare himself King of Wales.

RE: Spain

Do you really have to follow the lead of developers and include Muslim Spain in the declarability regions for Leon, Castille and Aragon (and even Portugal)? What would you think of the idea of just putting NONE in the southern provinces of Spain?

RE: Byzantium

This is just another idea I've been playing with. What would you think aboutr reducing the area of declarability for Byzantine Emperor to either merely Byzantium or Byzantium and one or two other provinces. It'd mean that any ruler who took the city could usurp the title, which seems like a good way of simulating reality.

RE: Africa

The borders between the fictional north african kingdoms make Tunis provincial, whereas considering its importance and wealth, and considering the aims of Crusaders, the chances are it would have been at the center of a Kingdom. Tunis is neither in Libya (except in the ancient Greek sense) nor Numidia. If there are enough tags, maybe you could create a Kingdom of Tunis. Or if not, rearrange the borders to make Tunis more central?

Anyways, I look forward to seeing the Duchies map.

 

[Enravota]

my comments on kingdom map:
1) make Granada bigger, taking some land from Aragon, Castille and maybe Portugal. As Iberian kingdoms ussually get overrun by the taifas they should be easily, without compiting the recinquista.

2) Iceland should not be part of Norway but rather None. I'm not sure that Iceland was ever part of Norway, though inhabited by Norwegians.

3) The kingdom of Kazan should be renamed (or rather keep its name) to Bulgar. Kazan was not an important city 'till High Mediaval times. in 1066 Kazan didn't even exist .

4) maybe give the Crimean Byzantine provs to Cumania as they weren't a core provs of Byzantium and the empire should be easier to recreate, and Cumania on the opposite as fictional crusader kingdom should be harder to recreate.

5) Maybe leave Finland out of Sweden and Russia. it would be best to have it as a separate kingdom.


and a comment on culture map:

north Dobrudja as it southern part should be Bulgarian. i'm unsure why it was split at all as this was done much, much latter (with Romanian colonisation in 19 century).


nice and humongus work though congrats

 

[Olaus Petrus]

Few comments about the kingdoms map:

1. Finland and Estonia shouldn't be part of Sweden and Karelia shouldn be part of Russia. Estonia was under Danish and German rule in middle ages. Finland and and Karelia were conquered by Swedes and Russians but weren't core areas of Sweden and Novgorod. Also Latvia and Prussia shouldn't be part of Lithuania. They were conquered by Teutonic Order and remained under German rule the whole middle ages. All of these areas shouldn't belong to any kingdom at all.

2. Iceland joined to Norway peacefully in 13th century, but was never core area of Norway. Man controlled only Man and Hebrides. Earldom of Orkney weren't part of kingdom of Man. So Man should be only two province kingdom.

3. Danish kings claimed title king of Wends, but Wendish areas weren't never core areas of kingdom and were soon lost to Germans.

4. Do we need kingdom of Grananda? I think we already have enough Iberian kingdoms.

5. Lotharingia? I thought that this kingdom was destroyed centuries earlier. We don't need fictional kingdoms in Europe where we already have enough kingdoms. Arles or Burgundy both names were used, but Burgundy is more commonly used in modern litterature.

I think that kingdom situation is already good in latest betas, unlike the culture situation which is far more important than chancing kingdom boundaries. And many changes are historically uncorrect.

 

[Enravota]

Few comments about the kingdoms map:

1. Finland and Estonia shouldn't be part of Sweden and Karelia shouldn be part of Russia. Estonia was under Danish and German rule in middle ages. Finland and and Karelia were conquered by Swedes and Russians but weren't core areas of Sweden and Novgorod. Also Latvia and Prussia shouldn't be part of Lithuania. They were conquered by Teutonic Order and remained under German rule the whole middle ages. All of these areas shouldn't belong to any kingdom at all.

i agree to that

2. Iceland joined to Norway peacefully in 13th century, but was never core area of Norway. Man controlled only Man and Hebrides. Earldom of Orkney weren't part of kingdom of Man. So Man should be only two province kingdom.

for Iceland i do agree, but Man wouldn't be very good kingdom if its only two provinces. if its down to them it would be better removed

3. Danish kings claimed title king of Wends, but Wendish areas weren't never core areas of kingdom and were soon lost to Germans.

yep, none or fictional crusader kingdom.

4. Do we need kingdom of Grananda? I think we already have enough Iberian kingdoms.

but most of them is almost impossible to recreate if loosed to moorish wave. granada would improve that.

5. Lotharingia? I thought that this kingdom was destroyed centuries earlier. We don't need fictional kingdoms in Europe where we already have enough kingdoms.

yet still it was almost recreated. so it would be nice to see it here.

 

[yourworstnightm]

It wasn't that long time since Lotharingia fell in 1066, should be recreatable.

 

[Calgacus]

It wasn't that long time since Lotharingia fell in 1066, should be recreatable.

LOL ... I disagree. I dunno, it seems popular, but it's totally fictional for 1066-15th century. I we have that, there's no reason we shouldn't have Aquitaine, or Cumbria-Strathclyde.

 

[Enravota]

it would be hard to recreate anyways, needin' to beat up HRE and France.

on the other hand, i think Strathclyde would be too small, and Aquitane 100% in france and would just be a secondary gift title to the French king

 

[Calgacus]

I think the Emperor would be able to declare it, looking at the map.

Aquitain would only be 100% in France if it were actually in France, which it wouldn't be. Dunno if the Angevins would be able to declare for it in 1187.

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Excellent Maps but I'm not too sure about the Kingdom of Wales, it's only five provinces now. Why is Powys part of England? Powys is even Welsh in the Cultural map, it was part of Gwynedd, it's in northern Wales, which is the most Welsh part of Wales!

Powys is not in England, its part of Wales.

I'd also make Quena part of Nubia, the Red Sea hills was inhabited by an African people and from the maps I've seen the province is rather awkward, ideally it should be split in two so I guess it could go either way but the valuable gold mines of the Hills where under Nubian rule.

I actually added both Quena and Asyut to Nubia but then it appeared too big...I'll include this into consideration though.

Also Kudos for the Kingdom of Man, really cool idea

Well it is historical.

I love the culture map, and I'll definitely use it when it comes out (editing a little bit of course ). I like the other map too, although I'm not too pleased with Arles and Lotharingia, or the absence of Mesopotamia ; Arles I'm gonna rename Burgundy (I understand it was called that, but the HRE uses Burgundy in his titles). Lotharingia's just fictional. The Dukes of Burgundy in the LMA who controlled most of it didn't even conteplate calling themselves Kings of Lotharingia. In fact, several lords controlled the a declarable amount of the area at some point, and it never came up.

Arles or Burdunfy it's the same, thing actually.
As for 'King of Mesopotamia' I find it highly anachronistic not to include Duchy of Mesopotamia, besides that whole "kingdom" was in fact part of Persia. As for Lotharingia Burgundian dukes did not call themselves because they never suceeded to control all of the area, however we have more then enough evidence that their ultimate goal was to claim the title and declare independence from France and German/HRE.

RE; Kingdom of Man

I'm OK with this, but don't you think "Isles" would be better? As in "Rex Insularum" or "Dominus Insularum" (Lord of the Isles) or "Rí Innse Gall" (King of the Islands of the Foreigners). The Stewart Kings of Scotland called themselves "King of Scotland and the Isles" ... so it could fit with later history. Even Rex Manae et Insularum was used.

Well it seems to me really like a minor issue. That kingdom is known both as Man, Isles, Hebrides, etc....
IMO it was more known as 'Kingdom of Man' then as 'Isles'.

RE: Wales

This is just an idea. In my own game, I've replaced Wales with "Britons." Wales (6), Brittany (6) and the West Country (3) count as the area of declarabilty, essentially the Duchies of Cornwall, Britanny, Gwynedd and Deheubarth. The reasoning is three-fold. Firstly, it reflects accurately the ideology of the Britons in the period. Secondly, it makes the Kingdom of Wales more difficult to obtain for the rulers of Gwynedd (they never obtained it). Thirdly, (depending on how it's done) it makes it harder for the King of the English (in later scenarios) to just declare himself King of Wales.

I don't know....personally I don't like this idea. It would be good for some Briton oriented mod, but not for this more "general mod".

RE: Spain

Do you really have to follow the lead of developers and include Muslim Spain in the declarability regions for Leon, Castille and Aragon (and even Portugal)? What would you think of the idea of just putting NONE in the southern provinces of Spain?

I don't like that.

RE: Byzantium

This is just another idea I've been playing with. What would you think aboutr reducing the area of declarability for Byzantine Emperor to either merely Byzantium or Byzantium and one or two other provinces. It'd mean that any ruler who took the city could usurp the title, which seems like a good way of simulating reality.

Thats not doable.

RE: Africa

The borders between the fictional north african kingdoms make Tunis provincial, whereas considering its importance and wealth, and considering the aims of Crusaders, the chances are it would have been at the center of a Kingdom. Tunis is neither in Libya (except in the ancient Greek sense) nor Numidia. If there are enough tags, maybe you could create a Kingdom of Tunis. Or if not, rearrange the borders to make Tunis more central?

It does really matter. These African and middle-East kingdoms are based mainly on the Roman era. During that Era Tunis was part of Africa provice. Numdia in this mod is other name for 'North Africa' kingdom.

my comments on kingdom map:
1) make Granada bigger, taking some land from Aragon, Castille and maybe Portugal. As Iberian kingdoms ussually get overrun by the taifas they should be easily, without compiting the recinquista.

I actually made Seville, Niebla, Cadiz, Aracena and Cordoba part of Granada kingdom but it seemed to me unhistorically large.

2) Iceland should not be part of Norway but rather None. I'm not sure that Iceland was ever part of Norway, though inhabited by Norwegians.

I don't really like the "none thing". I think every province on the map should be a part of one kingdom and one duchy...but Iceland very well may be an exception....IMO Iceland shouln't even be on the map....Canaries also...

3) The kingdom of Kazan should be renamed (or rather keep its name) to Bulgar. Kazan was not an important city 'till High Mediaval times. in 1066 Kazan didn't even exist .

I find that name rather stupid. Take this example - Franish duke conqueres whole region and proclaimes himself King of Bolgar(Volga Bulgarians)...I doubt very much anyone would prolclaim himself that...

4) maybe give the Crimean Byzantine provs to Cumania as they weren't a core provs of Byzantium and the empire should be easier to recreate, and Cumania on the opposite as fictional crusader kingdom should be harder to recreate.

Those provinces were never under Cumans.

5) Maybe leave Finland out of Sweden and Russia. it would be best to have it as a separate kingdom.

Yes that may be a good idea, after all Finnish kings did exist during at least 200 years of CK timeframe.

north Dobrudja as it southern part should be Bulgarian. i'm unsure why it was split at all as this was done much, much latter (with Romanian colonisation in 19 century).

There was posted a proof that Vlachs were present there in majority.

nice and humongus work though congrats

Thanks.

1. Finland and Estonia shouldn't be part of Sweden and Karelia shouldn be part of Russia. Estonia was under Danish and German rule in middle ages. Finland and and Karelia were conquered by Swedes and Russians but weren't core areas of Sweden and Novgorod. Also Latvia and Prussia shouldn't be part of Lithuania. They were conquered by Teutonic Order and remained under German rule the whole middle ages. All of these areas shouldn't belong to any kingdom at all.

As I pointed out I don't like the provinces belonging to "none".

2. Iceland joined to Norway peacefully in 13th century, but was never core area of Norway. Man controlled only Man and Hebrides. Earldom of Orkney weren't part of kingdom of Man. So Man should be only two province kingdom.

However it was part of Norwegian kingdom. As for Orkney their Dukes/Lords were Kings of Man/Isles for centuries.

3. Danish kings claimed title king of Wends, but Wendish areas weren't never core areas of kingdom and were soon lost to Germans.

Whole Mecklenburg and Pomerania were in union with Denmark throughout whole CK priod.

4. Do we need kingdom of Grananda? I think we already have enough Iberian kingdoms.

Yes we do.

5. Lotharingia? I thought that this kingdom was destroyed centuries earlier. We don't need fictional kingdoms in Europe where we already have enough kingdoms. Arles or Burgundy both names were used, but Burgundy is more commonly used in modern litterature.

Lotharingia was claimed by several Burgundian dukes, it could have easily happen that they succeeded...besies I already explained it above. Same for Arles/Burgundy.

I think that kingdom situation is already good in latest betas, unlike the culture situation which is far more important than chancing kingdom boundaries. And many changes are historically uncorrect.

I disagree with you. All changes are made based on historical facts and also I also find the current beta kingdom setup greatly ahistorical and even ridiuclous. Removing Navarre because it doesn't suits someone while playing multiplayers, etc....

I apologize for this long post...

 

[unmerged(27913)]

Btw. Duchies map is up =>
http://upl.silentwhisper.net/uplfolders/upload4/Duchies.rar

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Nice map Finnellach.

Some minor comments, not so much about the borders but about the names. A

Duchy of Limburg.
Like stated in other threads it was rather small duchy and not in Jülich nor in Loon, (Loon is in current belgian province of Limburg, which is not the same area as Limburg in middle ages). Why not name it Jülich since there were dukes of Jülich who alse became the dukes of Gelre.

Duchy of Modena
I would rather go for the option of a duchy of Siena, there never was a Duke of Siena but Siena was more important than Modena in the CK age. There was a Duke of Modena, but only after the middle ages.

Duchy of Roma.
I would rather use the name duchy of Lazio. I know you want the pope to be archbishop of Rome, but since ecclestial rulers can create titles, he will not create the title archbishop of Rome.

Duchy of Posen
Why Posen. Why not Wielkopolska ?

A duchy of Podolia (not to be confused with Podlasia). That would be were duchy of Torki in CK map right now ?

Duchy of Acre
I would rather go for the name Duchy of Jaffa. In the KoJ there was a title Count of Jaffa, together with the principality of Galilea the only titles above a lordship in that area. The count title of Jaffa was mostly preserved for the heir of the throne. I know Acre stayed longer in christian hands, KoJ sometimes called Kingdom of Acre.

And a shame you didn't go for the Archbishop of Utrecht/Sticht
But I know we disagree about that one.

 

[Semi-Lobster]

Great map! But you seem to have forgotten to put names on Silesia and Krakow

I should have mentioned this in the duchy thread but I might as well mention this here... I HATE the title of Aswan The region should be called Nobatia, this area wasn't all of Nobatia, infact, it was just the northern fringe of it but it's a much better and accurate name then Aswan since the kingdom of Nobatia was an actual title.

Also are you sure about Kazan? It's exactly the same as your kingdom title, it even has the same name, and that's just a bit jarring.

I'm not to keen on Novgorod, I think an Olonets and a seperate Novgorod title would be the best way to represent the area.

One last thing, I kbow everybody hates one province titles but I'd like to see a Duchy of Canarias, the King of Spain granted Jean de Béthencourt the title of King of Canarias after a long and bloody campaign against the Guanche tribes of the Canarais. Of course it shouldn't be considered as a real title but it was considerable effort to defeat the guanche over a long period of time and the title and the stipulations of the title (Jean was given the title by the king of Castile, and considered the King his overlord since he provided aide to the normans who conquered the island), makes it an ideal candidate for a Duchy.

 

[Calgacus]

Well it seems to me really like a minor issue. That kingdom is known both as Man, Isles, Hebrides, etc....
IMO it was more known as 'Kingdom of Man' then as 'Isles'.

Nah, Man is separate from the Isles. It's wrong to include those areas in any kingdom known as "Man." Whereas it'd be acceptable to call it the "Isles." It's not a minor issue because placing 1/4 of Scotland in a made-up catholic kingdom could only be acceptable if it had an accurate/believable name.

I don't know....personally I don't like this idea. It would be good for some Briton oriented mod, but not for this more "general mod".

As far as I understand, recreatable Kingdoms can't be scenario specific. So no mod could be made for it without overwriting all the other mods. Or am I wrong?

Anyways, at the very least 3 non-Welsh provinces should be added to the Welsh Kingdom, since as it stands the Duke of Gwynedd only needs one more province to declare himself King of Wales, which seems too easy. Perhaps Hereford, Shrewsbury and Chester?

I don't like that.

These kingdoms were founded pre-reconquista, meaning that the rulers didn't need to conquer half of Al-Andalus to become Kings of Leon or Castille; it just seems inappropriate (in a scenario where Leon and Castille have been wiped out) to force a ruler to conquer so muich before re-establishing these kingdoms. It's sound logic, and so I don't understand why you don't like it. As it stands, the only kingdom with a decent chance of re-ermerging should the Muslims obliterate the christian kingdoms, is Navarre.

More generally, I very much hope you will reconsider your decision to reverse the trend the patchers have set by decreasing the areas needed to declare Kingdoms ... Russia, Sweden and France the most obvious examples here.

It does really matter. These African and middle-East kingdoms are based mainly on the Roman era. During that Era Tunis was part of Africa provice. Numdia in this mod is other name for 'North Africa' kingdom.

I don't understand this response. Tunis wasn't in Numidia. If the basis is the Roman period, then Numidia and Libya shouldn't be partitioning the central, wealthiest, most urbanized area (i.e. Africa=mod. Tunisia). To anyone who knows about classical and early medieval north Africa, the names you've given these kingdoms suggested Kingdoms of desert-nomads, which is fair enough, but the urbanism of Carthage-Tunis should be central part of some Kingdom, not a peripheral outpost of a desert kingdom. Perhaps, Numidia, Africa and Cyrenaica?

Arles or Burdunfy it's the same, thing actually.

Yeah, much as I appreciate the intention, actually, you should have been able to gather from my post that I already know that and don't need it pointed out to me. I just don't like the name. You could at least be consistent and name Italy "Pavia."


LOL ... there was no Persia. These titles are inventions. The relationship between Persia and Mesopotamia would be the equivalent to Germany and Italy. Mesopotamia wasn't "Persia-proper."

As for Lotharingia Burgundian dukes did not call themselves because they never suceeded to control all of the area, however we have more then enough evidence that their ultimate goal was to claim the title and declare independence from France and German/HRE.

Perhaps Kings of Burgundy. Come on, really, Lotharingia is a fad on this forum; one of the Burgundian Dukes chased the HREmperor in a river demanding to be made King, but not of Lotharingia as far as I'm aware. Otto I had gained control of the area and had given it to his brother. The latter split it into two duchies, and thereafter (c. 959) it ceased to exist even as a notion. It had only been created in 855, and was carved up between "France" and "Germany" c. 870. It lasted a decade and a half. The Kings of Germany were perfectly free to add it to their titles if they wanted, but they never did. (The kings of Germany liked titles BTW ). The thought of it being in the game is ... forgive me ... laughable.

It'd be quite reasonable to just merged Arles and "Lotharingia" as Burgundy.

 

[Calgacus]

RE: Duchies Map

Won't go over much, but I'll just say I love the Duchies in the British Isles. Almost as perfect as it could be, although I think Wales should have another Duchy, perhaps Morgannwg/Glamorgan. EDIT: Actually, that's prolly not the best of ideas 'coz of the way they're drawn, it'd cut Deheubarth down to one. I think a Duchy of Powys would prolly be the only workable idea, comprising Powys and Hereford. Anyways, g'job on the BIs.

The Duchies are certainly a great deal better than the Kingdoms. They're very good. I strongly approve of your cut in the number of them. It may even tempt be to ignore some of the eccentricities in the Kingdom map, and use it, if goodness be willing, you get around to doing it after the next a-patch.

If I can be assed later, I'll comment on some of the non-BI duchies.

BTW, are you planning to rename any of the counties?

 

[Kujy]

Concerning Finellach's 'Duchies Map':

1) Duchy of Posen->Duchy of Wielkopolska (love how it is set up though )
2) Duchy of Sandomierz-eliminate! (maniacal laugh), giving the northern county to Mazovia and southern to the yellow duchy (not labeled, so, Malopolska??)

Just a suggestion