You'll have to play around with the path line in the .mod and the folder name, to get them to match, and you have to move the .mod from the extracted folder and put it in your mod folder in the documents tree.
[LUX] Spirituality Enhancement
- Thread starter Numahr
- Start date
-
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.
I booted up Lux this morning before work after a few days away from it (working on Chronicled Achievements) and found a crash bug and a blank event bug, both of which I fixed. If you were running into those, get the most recent github version.
What are the differences between Yahyanism and Mandeanism? Or Apogenesianism and Zalmoxism?
I'm getting empty event files/pop ups ingame that I can't close, so I haven't been able to do anything.
HL introduced raiding adventurers (adventurers who raid other lands until they decide to settle, or their warband is destroyed). Vanilla allows this for altaic nomads, and norse pagans (reformed or not, of any government.) What cultures, religions and governments in what combination should LI allow to have raiding adventurers?
Interesting questions
1. Yahyanism and Mandeanism
Interesting, I asked exactly the same question to Shaytana in 2012, see extract from private messages:
To complement with less holy scriptures, LI Mandeanism is a quite close to the real life version, with the difference that it is more influential. The focus on John the Baptist-Elijah as a central messianic figure rather than Jesus is strong in LI. But Mandeanism is not as miilitant, or, if you wish, deviant as Yahyanism. That is why Mandeanism has a traditional soul while Yahyanism is messianic (access to prepared invasions, more sectarian, etc.).Shaytana said:
2. Apogenesianism and Zalmoxism
To make it short Zalmoxism is the mainstream version (Graeco-Roman Mainstream Martial) while Apogenesianism is the Manichaean-influenced Gnostic variant (Graeco-Roman Local Martial + Gnostic ascendant)
@richvh
Questions received:
- dynasty_opinion never worked actually in 00religions.txt and I guess never will. All relevant lines could simply be deleted. I used other variables instead.
- More on the issue of raiders and governments soon...
Thanks richvh
OK so about raiders & government... also keeping in mind your earlier question on can_hold_temple...
Let's recap. Already some time ago, we defined the rules for what we originally called "LI-Pagan" religions (initial ToG terminology), later called "Tribal authority-based politics", later changed to the current denomination of "Clanic government" (to make it distinct from Charlemagne-styled "Tribal Government"). Now THL introduced "Government" as a more formal segmentation axis independent of religion as well as Clanic gameplay features.
So what to do to keep our features while making them evolve with the engine development? Dear councillors in particualr, please comment on this design post.
I don't have fixed idea yet but here is my current proposal. (I put aside Republics once for all)
- Nomadic and Tribal governments, as well as Iqta, are fine and correspond to interesting and clear gameplay features. No reason to change them from Vanilla.
- However I am less certain about the so-called "feudal" government style. It does not make so much sense everywhere in a prolonged late antiquity world as it does in Vanilla.
- This is where we can recycle the "Clanic" government concept we have already implemented, as a sub-segment of Feudal - meaning we give precedence to Nomadic or Tribal gameplay features over our legacy "Clanic government".
- In coding terms, any realm that is neither Nomadic nor Tribal, but corresponds to the current LI definition of Clanic, would then be considered as Clanic government. Clanic Laws as they are coded would be affecting both Tribal and Clanic governments.
- In lore terms, the clanic government represents sedentary "Barbarians" with a political organization intermediary between the Vanilla "Tribal" and "Feudal". They represent those realms which kept alive traditional politics based on inter-personal relations rather than the colder and more formal feudal relations. A a-historical successful resistance from "Barbarian" civilizations resisting the feudal model.
-> For example, Celtic or Norse civilization realms, which are currently "feudal", would become "Clanic". Those realms of Celtic or Norse civilization religion which are currently defined by DR as Tribal would remain so and would still have the LI Clanic Laws. But most or all Tengriist realms, currently affected by the LI Clanic government laws, would loose them since they benefit from the Vanilla Nomadic government.
In addition, I think we could have yet another form of Government to split the current Feudal group called "Imperial" for any holder of an Empire-level titles not Iqta, nomadic, tribal or clanic. So in practice, at game start up, these would be holders of SPQR, Persia, Saba, Kush, Byzance, Serindia, India and Tibet (although I would suggest to turn Tibetan provinces into Tribal government considering what we see from pre-modern Tibetan history -> @ Darkreborn ). But any empire title acquired during the game would grant this government. These would have access to the can_hold_temple as well as the vice-royalties.
OK so about raiders & government... also keeping in mind your earlier question on can_hold_temple...
Let's recap. Already some time ago, we defined the rules for what we originally called "LI-Pagan" religions (initial ToG terminology), later called "Tribal authority-based politics", later changed to the current denomination of "Clanic government" (to make it distinct from Charlemagne-styled "Tribal Government"). Now THL introduced "Government" as a more formal segmentation axis independent of religion as well as Clanic gameplay features.
So what to do to keep our features while making them evolve with the engine development? Dear councillors in particualr, please comment on this design post.
I don't have fixed idea yet but here is my current proposal. (I put aside Republics once for all)
- Nomadic and Tribal governments, as well as Iqta, are fine and correspond to interesting and clear gameplay features. No reason to change them from Vanilla.
- However I am less certain about the so-called "feudal" government style. It does not make so much sense everywhere in a prolonged late antiquity world as it does in Vanilla.
- This is where we can recycle the "Clanic" government concept we have already implemented, as a sub-segment of Feudal - meaning we give precedence to Nomadic or Tribal gameplay features over our legacy "Clanic government".
- In coding terms, any realm that is neither Nomadic nor Tribal, but corresponds to the current LI definition of Clanic, would then be considered as Clanic government. Clanic Laws as they are coded would be affecting both Tribal and Clanic governments.
- In lore terms, the clanic government represents sedentary "Barbarians" with a political organization intermediary between the Vanilla "Tribal" and "Feudal". They represent those realms which kept alive traditional politics based on inter-personal relations rather than the colder and more formal feudal relations. A a-historical successful resistance from "Barbarian" civilizations resisting the feudal model.
-> For example, Celtic or Norse civilization realms, which are currently "feudal", would become "Clanic". Those realms of Celtic or Norse civilization religion which are currently defined by DR as Tribal would remain so and would still have the LI Clanic Laws. But most or all Tengriist realms, currently affected by the LI Clanic government laws, would loose them since they benefit from the Vanilla Nomadic government.
In addition, I think we could have yet another form of Government to split the current Feudal group called "Imperial" for any holder of an Empire-level titles not Iqta, nomadic, tribal or clanic. So in practice, at game start up, these would be holders of SPQR, Persia, Saba, Kush, Byzance, Serindia, India and Tibet (although I would suggest to turn Tibetan provinces into Tribal government considering what we see from pre-modern Tibetan history -> @ Darkreborn ). But any empire title acquired during the game would grant this government. These would have access to the can_hold_temple as well as the vice-royalties.
- 1
I think I spotted the reason why there aren't any crusades now at game start.
If you start as the Shia Caliph, you'll see that that the only realm you have a Jihad CB for is Palmyra. If you look at the can_use_title section of the crusade CBs, you'll see that there's a restriction that the target must have at least 6 counties in its realm, and Palmyra is one of the few realms anywhere with that many or more at start.
If you start as the Shia Caliph, you'll see that that the only realm you have a Jihad CB for is Palmyra. If you look at the can_use_title section of the crusade CBs, you'll see that there's a restriction that the target must have at least 6 counties in its realm, and Palmyra is one of the few realms anywhere with that many or more at start.
- 1
Excellent! Hawk coding eyes
Remembering all the weird crusades this kind of makes sense, poor AI being forced to disregard Crusade weights due to this restriction irrelevant to LI...
Curious to see the new situation without this restriction...
Remembering all the weird crusades this kind of makes sense, poor AI being forced to disregard Crusade weights due to this restriction irrelevant to LI...
Curious to see the new situation without this restriction...
Maybe you could lift 6 counties decision and add instead a free holy war cb for any crusader against heathens in the crusaded region? So that crusades are grand, not glorified county conquest.
Commented out all target realm size restrictions, and didn't get any notification events but did see that the Shia Caliph called a jihad on Antioch, so I'm going to look into why I wasn't notified.
Our custom CBs don't seem to trigger on_crusade_creation. I've reported that in the Captain to the Rescue thread, so hopefully Captain Gars will look into and fix that, and it will be included in the next DLC patch.
Commenting out the realm size restriction in the old CB (without any distance or region restrictions), I get:
Shia jihad for Aegyptus against Alexandria on Jan. 7
Zalmoxian crusade for Zanzibar against Tseng Duchy on Jan. 8
Mithraic Christian crusade for Zanzibar against Tseng Duchy on Jan. 10
Mithraic crusade for Baoule against Ashanti on Jan. 11
Semipelagian crusade for Italia against Ancona on Jan. 17
Pelagian crusade for Dumnonia against Dumnonia on Jan. 18
Adoptionist crusade for Andalusia against the Ilm Caliph on Jan. 20
Almaqahi crusade for Zanzibar against Tseng Ducy on Jan. 22
Manichean crusade for Baoule against Ashanti on Jan. 30
Yoruba crusade for Sogdiana against Andugan on Jan. 31
Catholic crusade for Judah against Sinai on Feb. 2
I'm going to try the current version again and look at the war page in the ledger at say, 3 months in.
OK, with the distance and region restrictions in and the realm size restriction out, I find one crusade in the Wars ledger page on May 29: Shia Jihad for Parsa against Arya.
Commenting out the realm size restriction in the old CB (without any distance or region restrictions), I get:
Shia jihad for Aegyptus against Alexandria on Jan. 7
Zalmoxian crusade for Zanzibar against Tseng Duchy on Jan. 8
Mithraic Christian crusade for Zanzibar against Tseng Duchy on Jan. 10
Mithraic crusade for Baoule against Ashanti on Jan. 11
Semipelagian crusade for Italia against Ancona on Jan. 17
Pelagian crusade for Dumnonia against Dumnonia on Jan. 18
Adoptionist crusade for Andalusia against the Ilm Caliph on Jan. 20
Almaqahi crusade for Zanzibar against Tseng Ducy on Jan. 22
Manichean crusade for Baoule against Ashanti on Jan. 30
Yoruba crusade for Sogdiana against Andugan on Jan. 31
Catholic crusade for Judah against Sinai on Feb. 2
I'm going to try the current version again and look at the war page in the ledger at say, 3 months in.
OK, with the distance and region restrictions in and the realm size restriction out, I find one crusade in the Wars ledger page on May 29: Shia Jihad for Parsa against Arya.
Last edited:
- 1
Still does not seem very much influenced by crusade weights...
(I guess you removed the restriction that no realm should be the target of 2 crusades at once: I'd vote for keeping it, I think this restriction made sense)
(I guess you removed the restriction that no realm should be the target of 2 crusades at once: I'd vote for keeping it, I think this restriction made sense)
That was going back to the old, unmodded crusade CB, the one I set up so the Captain could have a look as to why the distance restriction in ai_will_do wasn't working. Check my edit above.
@Numahr: we're still missing the following crusade regions:
Last edited:
Yes I know well my to do list
Somehow I had the excuse that the whole thing was broken anyway and that my regions were enough for testing purposes. But since it's getting back on track, possibly, then I guess I'll complete this. A bit of travels now but I aim at the end of the month.
---
1 crusade during the 1st year is fine, if more crusades happen later. Even just 1 crusade /year would be fine, after all this is not supposed to be crusade/holy war feast. Shiite crusade for Arya seems to be OK with crusade weights, k_persia has a 5000 weight for Shiite (more than other Islamic faiths to encourage shiization of Iran)
Somehow I had the excuse that the whole thing was broken anyway and that my regions were enough for testing purposes. But since it's getting back on track, possibly, then I guess I'll complete this. A bit of travels now but I aim at the end of the month.
---
1 crusade during the 1st year is fine, if more crusades happen later. Even just 1 crusade /year would be fine, after all this is not supposed to be crusade/holy war feast. Shiite crusade for Arya seems to be OK with crusade weights, k_persia has a 5000 weight for Shiite (more than other Islamic faiths to encourage shiization of Iran)
In my current game, I haven't seen any crusades until the Shia Caliphate declared Jihad against the single-county Duke of Tripoli for Antioch in 1073.
A second Shia Jihad in 1084, this one for Media against Musil.
A second Shia Jihad in 1084, this one for Media against Musil.
Last edited:
What religions should have access to female chancellors?
Currently the list in job_titles is:
and the list in obj_become_chancellor is
The other councilor job requirements should probably also be reviewed.
Another concern about religion selection: Norse Mod mechanics. I'm currently using these religions, but the selection could be broadened or narrowed:
Currently the list in job_titles is:
Code:
religion = allat
religion = almaqah
religion = amanai
religion = attar
religion = berber_pagan
religion = gurzil
religion = hubal
religion = maher
religion = norse_pagan
religion = norse_war
religion = ragnarok
religion = shams
religion = sowilo
religion = talab
religion = arab_pagan_reformed
religion = berber_pagan_reformed
religion = norse_pagan_reformed
religion = ragnarok_reformed
Code:
catharThe other councilor job requirements should probably also be reviewed.
Another concern about religion selection: Norse Mod mechanics. I'm currently using these religions, but the selection could be broadened or narrowed:
Code:
OR = {
religion = norse_pagan
religion = norse_pagan_reformed
religion = norse_war
religion = ragnarok
religion = ragnarok_reformed
religion = sol_norse
}
Last edited: