Actually I've been trying to figure out how to change the title of Suryaye Nestorian temple holders to "Mar". According to this info just presented I'd have to do some heavy localization overhaul to make it show up, or rather I have no clue how to "map" the vanilla localization to an empty entry to overide it.
[MOD] SWMH 2.0 Map, de jure and general history mod. For a superior CK2 experience
- Thread starter Aasmul
- 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.
You add a line like temple_baron_christian;;;;;;;;;;;;;;x according to the number of columns in that file. The x has no purpose, the point is that the first two semicolons have nothing between them. Then temple_baron_assyrian;Mar will work. You’ll want to add back in localisations for temple_baron_<religion> for each of the other 13 non-nestorian christian religions (except orthodox, which has its own already). You’ll then want to define temple_baron, which will be used for all non-Assyrian Nestorians. (Keeping in mind that vanilla already has the temple_baron_<religion> landscape covered for non-Christians too.)
Code:
temple_baron;Bishop;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_baron_assyrian;Mar;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_baron_christian;;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_baron_catholic;Bishop;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_baron_cathar;Bishop;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_baron_fraticelli;Bishop;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_baron_waldensian;Bishop;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_baron_lollard;Bishop;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_baron_miaphysite;Bishop;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_baron_monophysite;Bishop;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_baron_bogomilist;Bishop;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_baron_monothelite;Bishop;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_baron_iconoclast;Bishop;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_baron_paulician;Bishop;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_baron_messalian;Bishop;;;;;;;;;;;;;xNote that SWMH has its own (otherwise non-functional) definition of temple_baron_assyrian which will be used instead if the SWMH file is loaded before yours. Watch out for VIET as well, it has several things like that. Assuming you’re using a separate file/mod.
Let me know if it works out for you; I’ve not actually done it, only proof of concept. Some
Last edited:
- 2
There should be a gudehov (tempel) in Strindafylki in 867, the gudhovet in Hladir playd a major role in norse paganism vs christianity like Mære untill it was destroyd by Olafr Tryggvasson in 995-1000. And I am not sure why you made Oslo as a bishopric/tempel and not as City (the largest in Norway now), but Oslo did not emerge before 900. There are a small number of gudehov known of in Norway but none of them playd very important role except for the ones in Mære, Hladir (till they where destroyd) and in Skiringssal. The one in Skiringsal had an importan role in worshiping Yngve (wich the Ynglings claim to be descedant of) untill the city was abandoned in 930. There is asumed a main gudehov in each countrypart (duchy) of in Noregr (Hamar, the one in Vingulmork should be moved to Vestfold, Hordaland, Normære, both Mære in Inntrøndelag and Hladir in Uttøndelag, Håløygaland).
I did indeed! I had to go into VIET_FlavorTitles and input this:
Code:
temple_baron_nestorian;Mar;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_barony_of_nestorian;Héklaa of;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_count_nestorian;Mar;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_county_of_nestorian;Héklaa of;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_duke_nestorian;Mitrapolita;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_duchy_of_nestorian;Metropolis of;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_king__nestorian;Patriarch;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_kingdom_of_nestorian;Patriarchate of;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_baron_messalian;Mar;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_barony_of_messalian;Héklaa of;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_count_messalian;Mar;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_county_of_messalian;Héklaa of;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_duke_messalian;Metropolitan;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_duchy_of_messalian;Metropolis of;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_king__messalian;Patriarch;;;;;;;;;;;;;x
temple_kingdom_of_messalian;Patriarchate of;;;;;;;;;;;;;xI simplified my scope, deciding that it was silly to do Assyrian specific localization when Sureth/Greek would have been the liturgical speech for in-game Nestorian anyway.
- 1
I was wondering if there was a way to restrict the creation of certain duchies to specific cultures. Example of this would be the duchy of Lothian to a Scottish overlord or the duchy of Normandy to a Norse or Norman count. I predominantly play the early 867 campaign long before many dukedoms arose in the common medieval era.
My preferred method would be to a dynamic de Jude structure for duchies based on ruling culture but since that is extremely labor intensive, I thought this end around may be viable instead.
My preferred method would be to a dynamic de Jude structure for duchies based on ruling culture but since that is extremely labor intensive, I thought this end around may be viable instead.
I've noticed that Guaifer, the duke of Salerno in the old gods start has been incorrectly labeled as a siconulf instead of a dauferidi, he was in actuality the son and grandson of the two older dauferidi's respectively. The Siconulfs were had been out of power for fiveish years by the old gods start.
Cheers chaps
Cheers chaps
A few minor problems:
1) Could you make the Croatian chief in 867 unable to form the Kingdom of Bosnia? And would it be possible to at least later on make some distinction between Bosnians and other Slavs?
2) Also in 867 Vela Ximenez, the brother of Gartzia Jimena, belongs in the Vela dynasty along with a duke whose in no way related to him
I also have a few complaints about Finland later when I'm on my computer
1) Could you make the Croatian chief in 867 unable to form the Kingdom of Bosnia? And would it be possible to at least later on make some distinction between Bosnians and other Slavs?
2) Also in 867 Vela Ximenez, the brother of Gartzia Jimena, belongs in the Vela dynasty along with a duke whose in no way related to him
I also have a few complaints about Finland later when I'm on my computer
Funny, we were discussing this in detail just a few days ago. I'm pretty sure Vela is already of dynasty Vela?
Yes he is. I did some research on the subject, and it seems like
1) at least Rodrigo of Castille (and his son) should be given his own dynasty (Porcelos? Or that a nickname of his son?).
2) Gartzia Jimena never was the count of Aláva, though I understand the decision to make him playable
3) Aláva in 867 should be held by a count called Eylo or Eglyon, apparently a rebel, whose lands were taken by Rodrigo of Castille in 868, after that Vela Ximenez apparently governed the county between 882-883.
4) Vela being the brother of Gartzia Jimena is quite uncertain.
Oh well, maybe one day HIP will have the dates between 867-1066 and this along with other things can be made nice and clear
(are you planning to do this? If you are, or even if you aren't, I could start filling the history when I have time)
Those were all actually things that were brought up in our discussion the other day- it would appear that Gartzia Jimena was regent in 870 for the Kingdom of Navarra and was claimed to rule "some portion" of the kingdom- no one knows what. I imagine he was given Aláva for that reason, then someone else came along with the "rebellion" idea and made Aláva independent.
A reasonable solution for the lack of start dates.
Finland complaints coming in later, since I now spent my time on researching this instead.
Finland complaints coming in later, since I now spent my time on researching this instead.
Looks like I failed to research properly. The lord who is in no way related to Vela but is in the Vela dynasty is actually Nuño of Viscaya, who should be in the same dynasty as his brother/father, the kings of Asturias. So you could probably fix that in the next update. Sorry for any inconvenience!
Nuño of Viscaya? It’s my understanding the Vela dynasty is simply the descendants of Vela Jiménez. García Jiménez is being moved to rule Gipuzkoa under King García I (and therefore still playable), while Álava will be ruled by Eglyón with Rodrigo given a claim.
Nuño is incorrectly in the Vela dynasty, and he should be in the de Cantabria dynasty or whatever dynasty the kings of Asturias are.
Not exactly a bug but all the, now, tribal Celtic kingdoms that have been given tanistry succession in the 867 start date revert to gavelkind upon first succession.
Easily fixable but requires going into the laws/succession folder and adding at the end of the potential string for tanistry "holder_scope_tribal = yes."
As it is currently, tanistry is only viable for feudal regimes.
Easily fixable but requires going into the laws/succession folder and adding at the end of the potential string for tanistry "holder_scope_tribal = yes."
As it is currently, tanistry is only viable for feudal regimes.
Last edited:
Would it be a good idea to just use this map and no other mods, just vanilla CK2? I don't like the HIP mod that much.
Also the westernmost Livonian province has Romuva religion, not Suomenusko, I think that is bug. Secondly, Sakala was not Livonian, it was Estonian.
Also the westernmost Livonian province has Romuva religion, not Suomenusko, I think that is bug. Secondly, Sakala was not Livonian, it was Estonian.
We wouldn't presume to tell you guys which HIP combination you guys should choose, we recommend as much of HIP as possible, but you are completely free to ignore that recommendation if you don't like EMF, Arkopack, CPR+ or SWMH for some reason or another. The great thing about HIP being so modular is that we offer you guys the complete choice of which kind of gameplay you want out of HIP. And we try to offer you guys more and more customization opportunities as we go on
Last edited:
So, just using the changed map with new cultures and nothing else would work? Or does the changed map need some elements of other stuff to work properly in the long term?
I mean, is there this map mod somewhere without the HIP stuff?
SWMH is fully compatible with Vanilla without any other Modules of course. Just like all other parts of HIP
- 1
Is it possible to mod the converter so that it would make the converted save playable in MEIOU & Taxes or is that just a fantasy?