[MOD] SWMH 2.0 Map, de jure and general history mod. For a superior CK2 experience

[IoannesBarbarus]

Is there any possibility of modding overrides for regnal numbers? Henry IV is numbered Henry III in‑game, because the first Emperor Henry was Henry II of Germany. It’s one of those high‑visibility minor errors.

I’m pretty sure it didn’t use to be this way (in vanilla or SWMH) before 2.2. But I’m not sure why it was correct then. I think the Imperial Crown was just handwaved onto the Kings of Germany before Otto I. Which is far worse than an off‑by‑one in the numbering. But then, coronations don’t really exist in CK2. That’s probably the number one thing I’d like to see added, whether in vanilla or HIP, especially for the HRE. Maybe it would only be flavor text (except for the HRE), but whatever, that’s fine. /rant

 

[Gwyn ap Nud]

Naming unfortunately will be weird quite often. Even if we consider kings different for numbering, like in pre and post-Norman England, they're the same in-game, which is even worse for Duchies. I had a Duke of Bedford be the 3rd of his name, because a handful of Kings of Mercia who had the same name existed before, because Mercia and Bedford use the same title. A related issue, is when you create and then immediately hand out a title, it counts you as the first, so the names will be skewed, had that happen with the Robert's of the Five Boroughs, kept having to remember that Duke Robert VI was actually Duke Robert V. Unfortunately, I don't think these are things that can be modded.

 

[IoannesBarbarus]

Any chance the next SWMH update is coming in the next 6 weeks? I’m thinking of putting some work into SED but I want to wait if the update might come soon.

 

[zijistark]

Is there any possibility of modding overrides for regnal numbers? Henry IV is numbered Henry III in‑game, because the first Emperor Henry was Henry II of Germany. It’s one of those high‑visibility minor errors.

I’m pretty sure it didn’t use to be this way (in vanilla or SWMH) before 2.2. But I’m not sure why it was correct then. I think the Imperial Crown was just handwaved onto the Kings of Germany before Otto I. Which is far worse than an off‑by‑one in the numbering. But then, coronations don’t really exist in CK2. That’s probably the number one thing I’d like to see added, whether in vanilla or HIP, especially for the HRE. Maybe it would only be flavor text (except for the HRE), but whatever, that’s fine. /rant

There were a lot of character history changes in 2.2 with which SWMH wasn't fully-compatible. This is presumably why the regnal numbering changed, if it did indeed change after 2.2.

It would not have been possible for Think0028 and I to have made the full character history merge required to eliminate all errors of this kind, because we we had no way to know, in some cases, which characters SWMH had modified and thus shouldn't be updated to vanilla's changes and which could be updated along with vanilla. I hope that a proper character history merge has been done for the next version of SWMH (the Eastern Expansion) that will take care of these issues (since the SWMH team knows what they modified, in theory), but I don't know whether that's the case.

 

[IoannesBarbarus]

There were a lot of character history changes in 2.2 with which SWMH wasn't fully-compatible. This is presumably why the regnal numbering changed, if it did indeed change after 2.2.

This particular error with Henry IV has been present in both HIP and vanilla since 2.2. At least, I’m 90% sure it’s in vanilla. So this is effectively a request for a vanilla fix.

 

[zijistark]

This particular error with Henry IV has been present in both HIP and vanilla since 2.2. At least, I’m 90% sure it’s in vanilla. So this is effectively a request for a vanilla fix.

Well, to then answer your question about whether regnal numbers can be fixed...

Sometimes, maybe. There is certainly no direct way to override the regnal number of a character. Indeed, it's not straightforward how that would even work, since characters take various titles at different times. Instead, all we can do is understand the automatic regnal numbering system and try to figure out if the reason a regnal number is wrong is actually illegitimate. If it is simply illegitimate, then it can be fixed with proper title history. If the de facto numbering simply didn't match Paradox's automatic pattern, then there's nothing to be done that won't involve hacking title history to actually be incorrect.

TBH, I don't actually know Paradox's regnal numbering quirks, but I can try: we're talking about Heinrich Salian, yes?

My impromptu understanding of automatic regnal numbering is: in history or game execution, whenever a title gets a [new] holder, their name is recorded in the title and a counter attached. The next time someone with the same name (and, I presume, the name equivalencies in the cultural name lists are considered) holds the exact same title, the counter is incremented, and they become, e.g., name=Louis, number=2 of k_france.

Given that, let's take a look at Heinrich Salian and the e_hre title history in SWMH...

[posting now so you can read along]

 

[zijistark]

SWMH has identical title history for e_hre as vanilla, so here we go:

800.12.25 = {
    active = yes
    holder = 6392 #Charlemagne
}
814.1.28={
    holder = 0
}
962.2.2={
    holder = 1282 #Otto I
}
973.5.7={
    holder = 1286 #Otto II
}
983.12.7={
    holder = 1288 #Otto III
}
1002.1.12={
    holder = 1296 #Heinrich II 
}
1024.7.13={
    holder = 1312 #Konrad II
    law = succ_feudal_elective
    law = agnatic_succession
    law = investiture_law_1
}
1039.6.4={
    holder = 1314 #Heinrich III 
}
1056.5.10 = {   
    holder = 1316 #Heinrich IV 
}

So, disregarding comments for the moment, characters 1314(*), 1312, 1296(*), 1288, 1286, 1282, and 6392 held e_hre prior to Heinrich IV. Asterisks indicate people supposedly named Heinrich.

Further investigation follows...

 

[zijistark]

So why was Heinrich II the 2nd, after all? In terms of the HRE, he certainly was the 1st (making Heinrich Salian the 3rd according to that simple rule). I'm guessing he was deemed the 2nd because he first held another title in which a Heinrich of his line preceded him. I'm not sure whether the game respects such a rule. If it does, something might simply be off with title or character history for that other title that made Heinrich II indeed the 2nd of <something>.

 

[Thure]

The problem with the title history is clare... There are no rulers between Otto I and Charlemagne. Historically there was an emperor between this dates and the current title history destroys regnal numbers in many cases. Not only Heinrich but Konrad too. The HRE should adopt the title history of k_germany.

 

[zijistark]

Ah, of course. Henry I, in this case, was Henry the Fowler. Since Henry the Fowler was only king of k_germany and not the HRE, the de facto regnal numbering is technically off here.

 

[zijistark]

Ah, of course. Henry I, in this case, was Henry the Fowler. Since Henry the Fowler was only king of k_germany and not the HRE, the de facto regnal numbering is technically off here.

I mean, to be clear, to fix this we'd have to claim that Henry the Fowler and Konrad I were actually Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire at a time when the HRE didn't even exist.

 

[Thure]

I mean, to be clear, to fix this we'd have to claim that Henry the Fowler and Konrad I were actually Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire at a time when the HRE didn't even exist.

Isn't there the possibility to adopt title history? I was sure this works in history files too. 'adopt_title_history = k_germany' or something like this?

 

[IoannesBarbarus]

Didn’t mean to send you through the title history files zijistark… in my original post I tried to explain why the problem exists (though not very clearly):

Henry IV is numbered Henry III in‑game, because the first Emperor Henry was Henry II of Germany.

But everything you've said matches my understanding. The kings of Germany before Otto used to be listed in HRE title history before 2.2, but we agree that this is a very poor solution.

Isn't there the possibility to adopt title history? I was sure this works in history files too. 'adopt_title_history = k_germany' or something like this?

If so, that would be ideal. Even if using it caused other regnal numbers to be incorrect, Henry IV is probably more important, just because he rules in 1066.

 

[zijistark]

There is insert_title_history, which I assume is to what you're referring. This is just shorthand for copying those Kings of Germany in as Emperors of the [nonexistent] HRE, though, so it doesn't really get us anywhere new.

I think it's most important that, when users are browsing the title history for the HRE, they see Otto I as the first "real" Emperor. That is an important distinction. Unfortunately, this does mean regnal numbers for the HRE for the names Heinrich and Konrad are going to be off-by-one from the de facto historical usage. A small price to pay for not making it look like Konrad I founded the HRE.

 

[zijistark]

What we need is some new engine feature to offset the automatic regnal numbering system by 1 (or -1, or whatever).

Envisioning how this might look...

Well, the way we'd hack the regnal numbering to work for Henry IV is by adding Henry the Fowler as a holder of e_hre somewhere (anywhere) prior to Henry II. If we could just have a history command like "regnal_placeholder = yes" to put inside that history entry, wherein the entry would be counted for regnal numbering but not counted for title history, that would get us closer. It wouldn't let us move regnal numbers backward, though.

[ Considering whether this is worth a formal suggestion to Paradox and how it would look if hacked in the usual Paradox minimum-effort manner. ]

 

[Ruwaard]

The main issue here is that regnal numbers don't always seem obvious for us. For instance the first king of Sicily was Roger II. Much later the 19th century German Emperor Frederick III was numbered, because he was the third Prussian king with that name. Likewise Henry the Fowler was important enough for the Ottonians to want to be seen as his successor.

Also when being correct the only period their wasn't an imperial successor to Charlemagne (though some were just glorified kings of Italy) was between 924 (Berengar) and 962 (Otto the Great).
Also as far the HRE was concerned, they were the imperial successors to Charlemagne, which can also be seen in the imperial numbering.

Though I like your creative suggestions to fix this issue; it may also solve the Anglo-Saxon/English Edward issue.

 

[Aasmul]

Any chance the next SWMH update is coming in the next 6 weeks? I’m thinking of putting some work into SED but I want to wait if the update might come soon.

90 % chance it will be out within that timespace yes.

 

[Nviard55]

Hello guys, i have been enjoying the mod pretty much since it's first versions. I am playing it again at the moment and there are a few things i'd like to ask and a few comments also:
- Peerage system would be great if it could be implemented (for example the 12 peers in France (6 ecclesiastical, 6 secular). The list is easy to find on wikipedia.
- in the late game, the map tends to be covered with cities which does not look great according to me. Would it be possible to have the urban areas on the map made smaller so we can still see the beautifull landscape, especially the fields.
- Army sizes tend to become ahistorical as the game progresses: for example, with France, i can muster over 300K men. Such number was not reach in any european army before king Louis XIV's one.

 

[zijistark]

Hello guys, i have been enjoying the mod pretty much since it's first versions. I am playing it again at the moment and there are a few things i'd like to ask and a few comments also:
- Peerage system would be great if it could be implemented (for example the 12 peers in France (6 ecclesiastical, 6 secular). The list is easy to find on wikipedia.
- in the late game, the map tends to be covered with cities which does not look great according to me. Would it be possible to have the urban areas on the map made smaller so we can still see the beautifull landscape, especially the fields.
- Army sizes tend to become ahistorical as the game progresses: for example, with France, i can muster over 300K men. Such number was not reach in any european army before king Louis XIV's one.

Try EMF+SWMH for the army sizes thing. You will never, ever see 300K in one army.
The city sprawl amount (how much graphical "cities" are drawn on the map to reflect building density in a province) can be tweaked in either common/defines.lua (search for NGraphics) or in your settings.txt (can tell the game not to draw citysprawl).

 

[Nviard55]

Thanks a lot. i'll try that