I figured it was a deliberate decision based on testing, but I wanted to make sure. I'm very glad to hear it'll be better addressed with the upcoming extension and mechanics. Thanks.
[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.
I figured it was a deliberate decision based on testing, but I wanted to make sure. I'm very glad to hear it'll be better addressed with the upcoming extension and mechanics. Thanks.
In my current game with the Almoravids I noticed the kingdom of al-Andalus can only be formed by Andalusians or some Arab cultures (Badawi, Misri...). So my question is: Is it intentional that the Berbers (Tagelmust, Znaga, Aznata...) can't create it?
Ah, found a bug; Muslim ibn Ubayd Allah, the father of the first Husaynid ruler of Medina, died in 976 not 967. Minor bug and not really important for gameplay, but it is so.
Thanks for noticing it Gwyn. I must have misread the research paper i found on the Husaynid Emirs of Medina
Some of these are really helpful and some of them are not.
I regretted ever starting to distinguish between different Antiochs, Athens and Alexandrias in the localisation you see in game, so those i will not be utilising. I feel like they subtract more from immersion than they add, so i would rather look to remove the ones i've added already. And just have the baronies be Alexandreia and Antiocheia etc
Also, the Bishoprics for the Patriarch seats need to be the same as the city. Otherwise the Patriarchs will be Patriarch of Naós ton Apostólõn Pétrou kai Paúlou and Patriarch of Hagía Sophía. And that quite frankly subtracts a lot from immersion, because they weren't Bishops of their Churches IRL, they were Bishops/Patriarchs of their Cities
And the Monaì one, i don't quite get the point you're trying to make or why you bring in something from the 4th Century to make said point. Better to use the period appropriate Mamure, even if the name wasn't used until the 1100s than to bring in a name that very likely hadn't been used for 300 years
The others is mainly diacritic changes (i got lazy down the road) and oversights by me. I know full well that Byzantine Greek utilized B instead of V, so that's just d'oh that i let a couple slip past me. And then there is the Monasteries where i decided to keep it as simple as i could because i had no idea if it was gibberish what i added
I will check to see if ANSI can even handle the diactritics before i promise to add them. CK2 is very picky about which diacritics we can use and which we can't
I regretted ever starting to distinguish between different Antiochs, Athens and Alexandrias in the localisation you see in game, so those i will not be utilising. I feel like they subtract more from immersion than they add, so i would rather look to remove the ones i've added already. And just have the baronies be Alexandreia and Antiocheia etc
Also, the Bishoprics for the Patriarch seats need to be the same as the city. Otherwise the Patriarchs will be Patriarch of Naós ton Apostólõn Pétrou kai Paúlou and Patriarch of Hagía Sophía. And that quite frankly subtracts a lot from immersion, because they weren't Bishops of their Churches IRL, they were Bishops/Patriarchs of their Cities
And the Monaì one, i don't quite get the point you're trying to make or why you bring in something from the 4th Century to make said point. Better to use the period appropriate Mamure, even if the name wasn't used until the 1100s than to bring in a name that very likely hadn't been used for 300 years
The others is mainly diacritic changes (i got lazy down the road) and oversights by me. I know full well that Byzantine Greek utilized B instead of V, so that's just d'oh that i let a couple slip past me. And then there is the Monasteries where i decided to keep it as simple as i could because i had no idea if it was gibberish what i added
I will check to see if ANSI can even handle the diactritics before i promise to add them. CK2 is very picky about which diacritics we can use and which we can't
Last edited:
What start dates and what "kingdoms" are the best accurately represented in HIP as of today? I'm planning to begin a "long" gameplay, and I don't really care which character and "kingdom" to play with, but I'd love them to be as accurately represented in the game as possible.
Kara Khitai around 1140? *runs*
I would say areas that have recently seen some updating are certainly better researched than others that haven't really been updated. For example, England, Arabia, Caucasus, Prussia (though no kingdom here), and of course the Byzantine Empire.
- 1
Thank you for your answer! Yeah, I didn't mean "kingdom" in the sense of "monarchy", I just meant... ¿country? ¿State?
The Byzantine Empire seems to have been very, very well researched, isn't it? But now, which age or years are the best accurately represented in your opinion?
1066 start date is the most balanced, complete and historically accurate IMO. Substantial work has been done on the 867 Old Gods bookmark as well although some areas are more complete than others (*cough* France *cough*).
The other start dates I have not played but I believe the team has focused more on the earlier BM than the later ones as there remains some issues with the Mongol horde invasions.
- 2
A small detail that has buged me. Færeyar is under de jure Norway, it should be in de jure kingdom of Man in 867. Norway did not gain the islands untill 1035.
Do you mean de facto? I have that fixed for a future version. As for de jure, I'd have to look into the arguments about whether it would be considered de jure kingdom of Man but I'm sceptical.
Well I don't think it should be de jure Norway before 1066. Just as the Orkneyar and Shetland was not under de jure Norway before the norwegian kings laid those islands under their rule. Btw, why is Orkney and Shetland under de jure kingdom of Man instead of Norway after viking age?
Why are there Prussians in the Moscow area? I don't profess to be an expert nor even very informed about this area, but it strikes me as odd, and I can't find anything about it.
- 1
Uh, I'm the only one who ever talks about Khitan stuff in the team, so I guess this is where I come in. I don't think using regnal or temple name is a good option because
1) Regnal and temple names are given posthumously
2) Another option would be era name, but that's even less recognized than temple name for non-scholars today
3) Kara Khitai rulers are identified with their given name in historiography, so it's not like using their given name hurts their recognizability like many Chinese emperors
4) I'm partial to Khitan names in SWMH because I personally added names in the Khitan form, including rulers'.
And in case you were curious, I think Arabic-language sources are the only contemporary sources left about Kara Khitai (other sources come after Kara Khitai's fall). In these sources the ruler of Kara Khitai are simply referred to as Gurkhan, the title that Yelu Dashi assumed when he appeared on the eastern edge of the SWMH map in 1130 or so (Emil). But I chose to use the Khitan form of Huangdi/Emperor for Khitan emperor title because it was impossible to maintain consistency in landed titles unless I stick with Liao-era titles.
I'm a stickler for little details when I find them. Even for parts of the map I don't play. The Ayyubid dynasty while very Arabized certain members like Saladin, his brother, and their sons/immediate family should possibly be Kurdish but use Arabic naming conventions. Is there any way to replicate this for just their dynasty? However, it seems later Ayyubid rulers would be firmly Masriq.