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

[Meneth]

Why would Gold or Goldish, if regular gold stands out too much, be a bad color? Would yellow be better? Anyway as you may have noticed, I'm not a fan of Grey, so why would that be better?

Grey is a very neutral color. Gold is a very stand-out color.
The most common criticism I've seen of SWMH, is the HRE green.
The most common criticism of a small mod that changes around the colors in SWMH, the HRE gold.
People in general don't like gold or green for the HRE. I've seen very few people opposed to the idea of a grey HRE.

 

[Meneth]

I've seen more complaints about green and only rarely a complaint about using gold (or yellow) for the HRE. Besides I don't see why it stands out more than blue, red or purple.

People don't complain about a color they never see.
However, one grand strategy place I visit, some people used to use a sub-mod of sorts that changed colors, including making the HRE gold.
The standard response there when someone posts a SWMH image: "That HRE green is terrible"
The standard response there when someone posted an image from that sub-mod thing: "That HRE gold is terrible"

So from what I've seen, most people like neither green or gold for the HRE. Other nations are complained about much less, though green England was complained about a lot until that was fixed.

 

[Meneth]

Now I did encounter complaints about Green England though, probably even more than a Green HRE. IMHO gold/yellow matches better with the CoA and IMHO purely aesthetically I find Grey a bit (for lack of a better word) dull.

As one person said (paraphrased): "anything other than a dull grey and the HRE might actually look like a unified realm!"

 

[Meneth]

Hi guys! I had a little break from CK2, so I was very glad to see the new 2.7 is out. :happy:
But alas I think I may be experiencing a glitch: should lake provinces look as dark as in my game? I couldn't find any screenshots of your last release, so I've nothing to compare to.

View attachment 80240

View attachment 80239

P.S I play Project Synergy, but I assumed this was a SWMH related question.

I believe that's due to Paradox ignoring the existence of lakes above sea-level, so actual water isn't rendered in lakes in mountains and such.

 

[Meneth]

Thank you for your reply, but that's not what I meant (sorry for not being clear): I realise these are "fake" provinces, but if I remember correctly, they weren't as dark as this, but more ocean-like blue to the point I wouldn't tell the difference if I didn't look right at them. Now it's kinds of noticeable. But from your answer I gather this is WAD and my memory isn't as good as I remembered?
:rofl:

Probably something to do with NBRT+ in that case; it changes a lot of the terrain textures.

 

[Meneth]

In SWMH, Rome's b_tivoli is changed from a castle to a city holding.
How does this affect the "Make Rome Capital" decision for restored Roman Empire, which usurps b_tivoli and renames it to Rome?

The Roman Empire becomes a Republic is what happens.
How I solved it in PB+SWMH:

effect = {
    custom_tooltip = rome_capital
    hidden_tooltip = {
        random_realm_title = {
            limit = {
                tier = baron
                holder_scope = { is_feudal = yes }
                county = { title = c_roma }
            }
            province_capital = yes
            usurp_title = ROOT
            set_name = Rome 
            ROOT = { capital = PREV }
        }
    }
}

 

[Meneth]

County files changed: history/provinces/

• 1225 - Agades.txt
• 555 - Pereyaslavl.txt
• 573 - Pereyaslavl Zalessky.txt
• 721 - Tabuk.txt
• 1135 - Conservano.txt, 547 - Kiev.txt : those two are purely me indulging my inner pedant.

Barony conflicts resolved:
The general philosophy was as follows:

• If baronies are nearby on map, esp. neighboring counties, the general assumption is that only one of them should stay.
• If only one of them exists (i.e., is already built at the start date), that's the one kept.
• If neither are built, tried to get a good reason for preserving one over the other. (Sometimes good reason, "city is coastal, so should go to a coastal province"), sometimes less so (Chablais/Valois conflict probably needs review).
• Baronies at more disparate locations were dealt with by renaming (in-game names not always changed, but barony codes were).
• Exception: b_stantoine was removed (dunno what do with it).

Spoiler

b_zurich: c_st_gallen (Thurgau), c_aargau (Aargau)
-- Nearby on map. Exists in c_st_gallen.
-- Removed from c_aargau.
b_zug: c_aargau (Aargau), c_schwyz (Schwyz)
-- Nearby on map.
-- Mentioned in '242 - Aargau.txt'.
-- Removed from c_schwyz.
b_zollern: c_hohenzollern, c_furstenberg
-- Nearby on map.
-- Exists in c_hohenzollern.
-- Removed from c_furstenberg.
b_zemun: c_syrmia, c_belgrade (Singidounon)
-- Exists in c_belgrade. Also actually in Serbia.
-- Removed from c_syrmia.
b_yaroslavka: c_pereyaslavl, c_pereyaslavl_zalessky
-- Redid those counties.

b_wildeshausen: c_tecklenburg (Tecklenburg), c_osnabruck (Osnabrück)
-- Nearby on map.
-- c_osnabruck is smaller.
-- Removed from c_osnabruck.
b_tkhabayerdy: c_simsir, c_alania
-- Nearby on map.
-- Exists in c_simsir.
-- Removed from c_alania.
b_thiers: c_auvergne, c_forez
-- Is actually in Auvergne.
-- Removed from c_forez.
b_teplice: c_litomerice (Litomerice), c_bars (Bars)
-- Whole bunch of Teplices around.
-- Mentioned in '1150 - Bars.txt'. Thus leaving c_bars alone.
-- Renamed c_litomerice->b_teplice to b_teplice_hre.
b_tamanrasset: c_araouane, c_hoggar
-- Exists in c_hoggar. c_araouane has way more possible baronies than max_settlements = 1.
-- Removed from c_araouane.
b_stantoine: c_dauphine_viennois (Viennois), c_valentinois (Valentinois)
-- Some Saint-Aotoine's around, but not obviously closer to either one.
-- Both counties have lots of baronies defined.
-- WARNING: REMOVED FROM BOTH.
b_seti: c_racha, c_odishi
-- Exists in c_racha.
-- Removed from c_odishi.
b_saida: c_atlas_mnt, c_hanyan
-- Nearby on map.
-- Actual Saida does not appear to be coastal and closer to c_atlas_mnt.
-- Removed from c_hanyan.
b_rashid: c_rashid, c_al_nadjaf
-- Disparate. Already exists in c_rashid.
-- Only Rashid near Nadjaf (Najaf) I could find is a tiny village.
-- Removed from c_al_nadjaf.
b_ramleh: c_jaffa, c_ibelin
-- Nearby on map.
-- Exists in c_ibelin.
-- Removed from c_jaffa.
b_querfurt: c_anhalt (Anhalt), c_blankenheim
-- Nearby on map.
-- Quefurt is (now?) in Saxon-Anhalt.
-- Removed from c_blankenheim.
b_pyryatyn: c_pereyaslavl, c_pereyaslavl_zalessky
-- Redid those counties.

b_pryluky: c_pereyaslavl, c_pereyaslavl_zalessky
-- Redid those counties.

b_porcien: c_porcien, c_rethel
-- Nearby on map. Exists in c_porcien.
-- Removed from c_rethel.
b_osnabruck: c_osnabruck, c_tecklenburg
-- Nearby on map.
-- Exists in c_osnabruck.
-- Removed from c_tecklenburg.
b_oboyan -- c_kursk, c_sugrov
-- Nearby on map.
-- c_kursk has only two baronies defined, c_sugrov has plenty.
-- Removed from c_sugrov.
b_nosivka: c_pereyaslavl, c_pereyaslavl_zalessky
-- Redid those counties.

b_nisa: c_turkmen, c_evora
-- Disparate locations. Exists in c_turkmen.
-- In-game, the c_evora's is "Nissa". Not to be confused with b_nizza.
-- Renamed c_evora->b_nisa to b_nissa.
b_nador: c_malila (Malila), c_el_rif (El Rif)
-- Actual Nador is coastal, so c_malila.
-- Removed from c_el_rif.
b_mut: c_seleukeia, c_buhairya
-- Disparate regions.
-- Actually a town in Cilician Mountains and a district of Egypt.
-- Renamed to b_mut_seleukia, b_mut_buhairya
b_murten: c_bern (Zähringen), c_neuchatel (Neuchatel)
-- Nearby on map.
-- Actually built by Duke of Zähringen. Modern Switzerland. Neuchatel is small.
-- Removed from c_neuchatel.
b_montmirail: c_vendome, c_brie
-- Actually two different Montirails.
-- Renamed to b_montmirail_vendome, b_montmirail_brie.
b_monthey: c_valais, c_chablais
-- Nearby on map.
-- Monthey is geographically near to Lake Leman.
-- Removed from c_valais.
b_midar: c_nakur (Nakur), c_el_rif (El Rif)
-- Nearby on map. Exists in c_nakur.
-- Removed from c_el_rif.
b_meung: c_orleans, c_chateaudun (Châteaudun)
-- Nearby on map. Meung-sur-Loire is (now?) in Orleans.
-- Removed from c_chateaudun.
-- NOTE: Only 3 baronies left, though enough for max_settlements = 3 SWMH default.
b_melnik: c_praha (Praha), c_chalkidike (Chalkidike)
-- Byzantine Melnik appears farther West in Bulgaria.
-- Removed from c_chalkidike.
-- NOTE: Only 4 baronies left, though enough for max_settlements = 4 SWMH default.
b_melilla: c_malila, c_el_rif
-- Neary on map.
-- Actual Melilla (Morocco) positioned where c_malila is on map ~ Cape Tres Forcas.
-- Removed from c_el_rif.
b_martigny: c_valais, c_chablais
-- Nearby on map.
-- To hell with Valais.
-- Removed from c_valais
-- NOTE: Only 3 baronies left, though enough for max_settlements = 3 SWMH default.
b_lubny: c_lubny, c_chortitza
-- Nearby on map.
-- Exists in c_lubny.
-- Removed from c_chortitza.
b_kotor: c_kotor, c_zeta
-- Nearby on map. Exists in c_kotor.
-- Removed from c_zeta
b_khenchela: c_tabassa, c_biskra
-- Nearby on map.
-- Exists in c_tabassa.
-- Removed from c_biskra. (3 baronies left; enough for max_settlements = 3 SWMH default).
b_gonio: c_guria, c_klarjeti
-- Nearby on map.
-- Gonio is close to and a bit south of Batumi. c_gurio contains b_batum.
-- Removed from c_klarjeti.
b_geurcif: c_el_rif, c_nakur
-- Nearby on map.
-- Guercif vs Driouch: Guercif is farther south, so c_el_rif gets it.
-- Removed from c_nakur
-- RENAMED: b_guercif
b_gera: c_weimar (Weimar), c_voigtland (Voigtland)
-- Sorta close.
-- There's an actual Gera that's close to Weimar.
-- Removed from c_voigtland.
b_fontenay: c_thouars, c_southvexin
-- North of Paris (c_southvexin), closest Fontenay is Fontenay-en-Parisis.
-- South of Brittany around Thouars, closest Fontenay is Fontenay-le-Comte.
-- Renamed c_southvexin->... to b_fontenayenparisis. In-game name changed.
-- Renamed c_thouars->... to b_fontenaylecomte. In-game name changed.
b_duba: c_tabuk, c_litomerice
-- Disparate. Exists in c_tabuk.
-- Duba is a city in Poland,
-- Renamed: b_duba_tabuk, b_duba_hre.
b_driouch: c_nakur, c_el_rif
-- Nearby on map.
-- Guercif vs Driouch: Driouch is farther north, so c_nakur gets it.
-- Removed from c_el_rif.
b_comana: c_turnu, c_sinope (Sinope)
-- Only Comana near Pontus/Trebizond I could find is ancient and more near Amasia.
-- Removed from c_sinope.
b_chervyen: c_minsk, c_zaslawye
-- Nearby on map.
-- Červień is SE of Minsk, so c_minsk gets it.
-- Removed from c_zaslawye.
b_budva: c_kotor, c_zeta
-- Nearby on map.
-- Budva is coastal, so c_kotor gets it.
-- Removed from c_zeta.
b_boudnib: c_sijilmasa, c_figuig
-- Nearby on map.
-- Boudnib is S-SW of Cape Tres Forcas ~ c_malila. Therefore, c_sijilmasa.
-- Removed from c_figuig.
b_bobruisk: c_minsk, c_zaslawye
-- Nearby on map.
-- Exists in c_minsk.
-- Removed from c_zaslawye. (Only 3 baronies defined, enough for max_settlements = 3 default).
b_benitajjit: c_sijilmasa, c_figuig
-- Nearby on map.
-- Beni-Tajjit is S-SW of Cape Tres Forcas ~ c_malila. Therefore, c_sijilmasa.
-- Removed from c_figuig.
b_belyov: c_kozelsk, c_moskva
-- Nearby on map.
-- Exists in c_kozelsk.
-- Removed for c_moskva
b_bechar: c_sijilmasa, c_figuig
-- Nearby on map.
-- Bechar is S-SE of Cape Tres Forcas ~ c_malila, so c_figuig would match better.
-- BUT It already exists in c_sijilmasa.
-- Removed from c_figuig.
b_baryshivska: c_pereyaslavl, c_pereyaslavl_zalessky
-- Redid those counties.

b_alhoceima: c_nakur (Nakur), c_el_rif (El Rif)
-- Nearby on map. Exists in c_nakur.
-- Also, Al-Hoceima is coastal, so c_nakur.
-- Removed from c_el_rif.
b_aigle: c_chablais, c_valais
-- Nearby on map. Exists in c_chablais.
-- Removed from c_valais.
b_agades: c_agades (Agadez), c_tadmekka
-- The in-game province name is 'Agadez', so...
-- Renamed c_agades->b_agades to c_agadez->b_agadez.
b_abbaziadisanpietro: c_verona (Verona), c_padova (Padua)
-- Nearby on map.
-- Mentioned in '319 - Verona.txt'.
-- Both counties have 23 billion (est.) baronies defined.
-- Removed from c_padova.

How the c_pereyaslavl / c_pereyaslavl_zalessky conflict was resolved:
-- REMOVED (c_pereyaslavl): b_yaroslavka
-- REMOVED (c_pereyaslavl_zalessky): b_nosivka, b_baryshivska, b_pryluky, b_pyryatyn
-- REMOVED (c_rostov): b_gavrilovyam
-- ADDED (c_pereyaslavl_zalessky): b_gavrilovyam
-- ADDED (c_pereyaslavl_zalessky): b_rybinsk (Rybansk), b_nikitsij - Starting city and temple, resp.
-- c_pereyaslavl_zalessky lowered max_settlements to 4.

Some other renamings:

Spoiler

• Renamed: c_kozelsk: b_odoyey -> b_odoyev. This is how it's listed in SWMH localisation.
• Renamed: c_sanmarino: b_aquaviva -> b_acquaviva. The c is correct.
• Renamed: c_brabant: b_dongleberg -> b_dongelberg. Added correct localisation.
• Renamed: c_mali: b_malikura -> b_malikira. This is how it's listed in SWMH localisation.
• Renamed: c_tirgoviste: b_bucovi -> b_bucov. This is how it's listed in SWMH localisation.
• Renamed: c_kiev: b_chruchofthethies -> b_churchofthetithes. Because why not.
• Renamed: c_conservano -> c_conversano. This bothers me more than is reasonable for some reason.

Added some missing or malformed barony localisations:

Spoiler

b_oldesloe
b_fucecchio
b_skulte
b_wallerstein
b_johvi
b_castellodimartellago
b_ghiyaru
b_ghayfa
b_torokkanizsa
b_saintsauveurlevicomte
b_saintgeorgesdannebecq
b_talabija
b_limbek
b_wittenborg
b_warendorp
b_pat_luneburg
b_vorrade
b_bardewik

Misc. stuff I also did:

• Looked at how neatly organized and tight the France code was, decided to emulate the style for some other regions.
• Removed some redundant AND {...} from a few title-creation conditions. That's because allow blocks already require everything to be true, i.e., allow = { foo bar } is just the same as allow = { AND { foo bar } }.
• LOL'd at b_mittromneystyle_heeeeeeeeeey_wealthy_ladies.

Incidentally, the first is why landed_titles.txt file is smaller.

To install, just dump the contents into mod/swmh2.7 directory. Probably NOT save-compatible.
I've tested it a bit, and it seems to work just fine, with nothing missing or improperly displayed.
If anyone has some complaints, let me know and I'll try to fix it.

View attachment 80547

I'd implement it in PB+SWMH, except it'd break saves for not that much benefit

 

[Meneth]

Why would you do that? I'm running PB / PB+SWMH with it already.
Is there some subtle incompatibility I'm missing?

I like to implement fixes from SWMH since SWMH doesn't update as quickly (next release is some time after TOG from what I've heard), and when released in this way much fewer people will download it.
However, since this fix would break saves (as titles existing in the save are removed), it is sadly not something I can implement.

 

[Meneth]

Is there any reason why Takrur is dejure Mauritania rather than Mali or Wagadu? Mauritania never holds the area in the history files.
And wouldn't it perhaps make more sense if Taghaza wasn't part of any dejure kingdom?

 

[Meneth]

I can only agree, it would also make any player attempted Imperial reconquest a little bit more sensible, seing as Mali/Wagadu is outside e.africa and e.africa is a requirement.

That too.

Oh, and I assume this is a bug: El Fasher is still a dejure kingdom after every other Saharan oasis was made kingdomless.

 

[Meneth]

Yes, there is whole bunch of reaons why Takrur is de jure Mauritania.
1) is should by no means be part of neither Wagadu nor Mali. It was in fact a rival kingdom to both of these. The best solution would be to make Takrur a separate kingdom, but you may assume, that it is too small for a kingdom.

2) The only "kingdom" that has ever managed to incorporate Takrur, was Almoravid empire, and Takrur was one of first targets of Almoravid expansion.

3) It was also the only part of West Africa, which onverted to Islam prior to 1066.

4) Mauritania is, in fact a kingdom title for Almoravids. It will in any case stretch from Takrur to Tanger to have Almoravid kingdom the way it was.
I can only imagine that I create one more kingdom called Maghreb, which will include the northern parts of recent kingdom of Mauritania and this kingdom would be used for Almohads. Maghreb and Mauritania would then overlap in some parts of Morocco, if you want.

1) It is not like Navarra is much larger
2) From what I can find with a cursory look they were only allied to the Almoravids at one point?

Last thing: Taghaza. It could make sense to remove it from Mauritania, but it was too important to be kept outside, so I decided to make it part of Mauritania.

Was it ever part of Mauritania though? Because if it wasn't, surely it could just be kingdomless like the rest of the desert routes?

You are right. This is wrong.
Sorry that I overlooked its kingdom title and forgot to remove it. It was planned to be part of East African overhaul.. and it will be.

Great

 

[Meneth]

So, I'm running PB + SWMH + VIET. I am the King of Nubia, holding dejure Abyssinia plus an Egyptian duchy I snagged from the Fatimids during a Crusade (I can actually take them on face to face now, too! I have 5k of cultural retinues plus 6k levies plus enough funds to buy mercenaries).

The issue is, a while back I have my son the county of Sennar. A few RL minutes later I noticed he had somehow snagged El Fasher, a desert oasis. The problem is that I cannot fabricate claims on any desert oasis, so I'm left wondering how the hell he got the county, considering he had no prior claim.

El Fasher is currently kingdom-tier, so claims can be fabricated on it. The SWMH team will fix it next patch I believe.
I suppose I'll fix it in PB+SWMH later today.

 

[Meneth]

Here's a minor idea:
The Fatimids should perhaps not hold the dejure title of Egypt, seeing as the Sultanate of Egypt didn't actually exist at the times. Instead the Caliphate could be made king-tier.
This would help make them less stable like they were historically, and would also help reduce their blobbing into North Africa.

 

[Meneth]

Yeah, I raised this issue in the vanilla bugs forum a few times when I probably should have been raising it here.

The first Sultan of Egypt should be Salah al-Din in 1174, and the Fatimids should only be caliphs, not sultans. I also agree with Meneth that the caliph titles should probably be king-tier.

The real question is how far to take this; should Seljuq have e_persia instead of k_persia, and the d_sunni also be k_sunni? It would seem weird to have the 2 major Christian leaders be k_tier (Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch), and 1 Muslim leader be k_tier, but then 1 Muslim leader be d_tier.

Your thread inspired the suggestion, yeah.

The Seljuks hold e_persia in Project Balance (and thus PB+SWMH) at least. Not sure if they hold it in SWMH alone.

 

[Meneth]

A recommendation for some some minor requirements for making empires:
war = no
ruled_years = 5
is_adult = yes
NOT = { tier = emperor }


Essentially, it will ensure that someone who has just inherited a kingdom and is in the middle of a succession war or similar can't just go ahead and create it. It also ensures that one can only hold a single empire.

 

[Meneth]

That's a good idea, although I'm not sure why an emperor shouldn't be able to create another empire if otherwise able to do so.

It doesn't make any sense for a Christian emperor at least, since they all claimed to be successor to Rome. Holding two successors-empires to Rome would be nonsensical.

 

[Meneth]

This is a great mod, and I am really enjoying it, one of the best mods I've played for any Paradox game!

There is one thing I've noticed, playing as Poland in the September 1066 bookmark, I wanted to try to take the Baltic coast provinces, but I noticed that one of the provinces (Djenne) is owned by Ghana? I'm not sure is this is a bug or if its there for balance reasons, but I find it impossible to get enough warscore to demand the province, especially as I cannot siege 2 of the holdings in the province for some reason. I just thought I would mention it, and thanks for making this amazing mod!

Probably something to do with the program you used to extract the mod.
I'd recommend installing 7-zip and extracting it again. Some extractors just ignore 0-byte files for whatever reason.

 

[Meneth]

I'm kinda concerned here. Won't the implementing of navigable rivers mess the map up so big, that it will take ages to make a SWMH version of ToG? How long do you guys think it will take?

Aasmul has given a two week estimate a few times.

 

[Meneth]

As far as i recall that was only in regard to the 867 bookmark. But i do think that a ToG version being released tomorrow or on Wednesday is highly unlikely.

But i'm sure Aasmul is way better suited to elaborate on that

Based on my exchanges with him 2 weeks was for 1.10 compatibility, not 867. But I might've misinterpreted.

 

[Meneth]

SWMH is almost certainly broken. Steppe terrain will be undefined, there's no "major_rivers" section in there, and of course the 867 start won't work at all.
Most likely it crashes on boot, which is what PB did until I updated it.