• 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.
But it does end in 1453. No matter, I knew what he meant. :-D

Also, that isn't exactly a DD about kingdoms. Just a suggestion by a person here. A suggestion I really really really like and intend to use. ;-)
 
Very tempted to start a converter mod, if only for religions. Since religion is such an important part of crusader kings, then it makes sense to try and convert religions as is. The reformation events may have to fend for themselves, however.
 
What I've done is added dirty religion mappings, so that we can at least get the broad strokes done. I've also added the beginnings of a converter mod to the directory. The converter mod probably won't do tags, but I will make it do religion and culture for starters (and cascade them forward to the other converter mods). Then it's a simple matter of 1 to 1 conversion of religions.

It still doesn't help us with a solution for those who are not using a converter mod.

Using protestant and reformed for the two largest is only valid for christianity. There are only two islams in EU3, and both of them are represented in CK2, so we can't devise a similar solution for the Muslim world. There are two pagan religions in EU3 (Shamanism and Animism), and all of the European paganisms where Shaminist, not animist (as far as I know).

Which means that without a converter mod we are going to need to use the EU3 heresy mechanic, and do a bit of fudging to at least maintain some of it's destabilising influence. The steps will be something like this.

1) The heretic religions must be converted to their parent religion, as per the religion mappings.
2) Each province that has a heretic version of the leaders religion gains heresy.
3) The reformation is yet to happen.


For example: your CK2 leader is Catholic, but some of your provinces are Cathar. The cathar provinces will be converted as Catholic, but gain heresy.

For example: Your CK2 leader is Cathar, and you have catholic provinces. Your leader will convert to Catholic, but each non-cathar christian province will gain heresy.

For example: Your CK2 leader is Orthodox, and you have catholic and cathar provinces. The nations state religion will be Orthodox (has a 1 to 1 conversion), the Cathar provinces will become catholic, and no provinces will gain heresy.


This is far from perfect, but it's the only way I can think of the maintain some of the instability that these differences of religion imply in a game of CK2 without a converter mod. Lots of information is still lost.
 
There are two pagan religions in EU3 (Shamanism and Animism), and all of the European paganisms where Shaminist, not animist (as far as I know).

The only pagan province with an owner at the start of EU3, Samogitia, is Animist. On the other hand, Lappland, unowned at the start, is Shamanist.

I would suggest mapping Suomenusko and Tengri to Shamanist, and Romuva and Pagan (found in the Canaries) to Animist.

To what will you map Zoroastrianism?
 
Do you think it would be a good idea to just ignore barony-level titles and give them to whoever holds the county? It seems like it doesn't make a lot of sense to waste highly-limited tag space on b_friuli.
 
Do you think it would be a good idea to just ignore barony-level titles and give them to whoever holds the county? It seems like it doesn't make a lot of sense to waste highly-limited tag space on b_friuli.

In the end, we'll ensure barony titles are not mapped to EU3 tags. Well, except in the cases where that might be relevant to tags. In any case, the current method is just a quick-n-dirty solution to allow us to work on some other mechanics. We'll put something better in place in time.
 
RE Baronies: Since they cannot be independent of their county liege, the titles must be merged with the county title. They should never be given a tag.

Have we talked about this before?:
Since EU3 doesn't allow vassals to have vassals, the lowest levels of any liege-vassal heirarchy must be merged in to the higher levels. For example, if a king rules some dukes, and the dukes rule some counts, EU3 can't map the vassalisation of the Kings and the Dukes unless it ignores the vassalisation of the Dukes and the Counts. Since the independent realm is more important, the ideal solution is to merge the counts in to the dukes, and make the dukes vassals of the king. This will free many tags.
 
RE Baronies: Since they cannot be independent of their county liege, the titles must be merged with the county title. They should never be given a tag.

Have we talked about this before?:
Since EU3 doesn't allow vassals to have vassals, the lowest levels of any liege-vassal heirarchy must be merged in to the higher levels. For example, if a king rules some dukes, and the dukes rule some counts, EU3 can't map the vassalisation of the Kings and the Dukes unless it ignores the vassalisation of the Dukes and the Counts. Since the independent realm is more important, the ideal solution is to merge the counts in to the dukes, and make the dukes vassals of the king. This will free many tags.

Out of curiosity, where does that leave those vassal kings under the Holy Roman or Byzantine empires? Personal Union maybe?
 
Kings under Emperors would have Duke titles merged into them, I would imagine, UNLESS the Emperor has really low crown laws. This would allow the situation of Silesia under Bohemia to be approximated. If the HRE has higher-than-autonomous vassals, then Silesia would be folded into the Kingdom of Bohemia. If the HRE has autonomous vassals, then the Kingdom of Bohemia isn't a vassal of the HRE (which would presumably be modelled using EU3 HRE or Shogun mechanics), and the Duke of Silesia is a vassal of the Kingdom of Bohemia.

A very rough approximation of history: in reality there were a whole pile of smaller principalities in Silesia on the County level that were direct vassals of the King of Bohemia, but trying to figure out rules for how to model that across the board is very difficult.
 
Out of curiosity, where does that leave those vassal kings under the Holy Roman or Byzantine empires? Personal Union maybe?

There's currently a mechanic in the converter that makes everyone immediately under the HRE independent and everyone in the vassalage chain to the HRE in the EU3 HRE. Like all territory-related mechanics, it's just roughed in, and I expect it's one we'll have to advise people to adjust each time depending on the state of the HRE. Edit: or we could try to tie it to something like crown laws. I don't really know yet how all this will work. It's likely to need some tweaking.

I'd love to do similar for other empires, but EU3 has limited mechanics there.
 
Last edited:
Same here, would love to see this finished.
 
Vassals shouldn't be taking up any significant number of tags, since they should simply be merged in in nearly all cases. Some of the previous posts in this thread touched on it.

Something like this makes sense: minimal crown authority = sphere of influence, low = vassal, medium = incorporated (with cores) high = incorporated (no cores).

The point of a converter is not to attempt to continue the gameplay of the save file. That is what timeline extention mods are for. The point of a converter is to create an alternate starting point for EU3 gameplay. Thus the resulting scenario should have nearly all of the vassals absorbed, because that is how EU3 starts (with France and the HRE being the two major exceptions).
 
Vassals shouldn't be taking up any significant number of tags, since they should simply be merged in in nearly all cases. Some of the previous posts in this thread touched on it.

Something like this makes sense: minimal crown authority = sphere of influence, low = vassal, medium = incorporated (with cores) high = incorporated (no cores).

The only problem I have with this is that CK2 high crown authority does not mean that you have complete control over the lands of your vassals. Incorporating them, therefore, doesn't make much sense, especially without cores. The defining features of crown authority are

1) Unable to declare war on each other.
2) Increased minimum levy from vassals.

The first is adequately mimicked with sphere of influence and vassalisation at medium crown authority. The second, when we start to convert for armies, ought to be handled by giving vassals progressively smaller armies (and the leader progressively larger armies) up to maximum crown authority. At maximum crown authority, the CK2 vassal will therefore be a vassal in EU3, with a very small (starting) army relative to the leader nation. In other words, as crown authority increases then the vassals get weaker and the leader gets stronger. This is in line with the behavior of vassals in CK2.

Another (much simpler) option is to merge all vassals in to the independent realm, and then set the centralisation slider based on crown authority. (decentralisation 5 for min, 1 for max). The only problem is that decentralisation 1 lies outside the maximum slider score for the government types that we're likely to use.

The point of a converter is not to attempt to continue the gameplay of the save file. That is what timeline extention mods are for. The point of a converter is to create an alternate starting point for EU3 gameplay. Thus the resulting scenario should have nearly all of the vassals absorbed, because that is how EU3 starts (with France and the HRE being the two major exceptions).

We're not modifying EU3 gameplay mechanics. Therefore, if the vassals are still in tact (and I think I've explained why they shouldn't be) then it's still going to be an alternate starting point for EU3. Simply because England in EU3 is unified does not mean that we should force it to be unified on conversion. The dis-unity of a country shouldn't be discarded simply because that country is unified in EU3. The history of the players world, the world that he has helped create, should not be discarded in favor of the history shown at the beginning of an EU3 grand campaign.
 
I'm more inclined to lean towards blobification of vassals. For two over all reasons.

First, I'm currently playing a CK:DV to EU3 conversion game, and KoM's converter left a great many vassals. In CK, I controlled the British Isles, France, Iberia, North Africa, and a good slice of the western germanies. On conversion, this is what I directly control:

View attachment 57043

and let me tell you, it's not the funnest game. (Of course, that's ultimately my fault for save-scumming a CK game to death and then converting it, but still).

Second, if you check England and France at the 1337 start in CK2, they have Medium and Low Crown Authority, respectively (which fits actual history pretty well, from my limited understanding of both countries at that time). If you load up the 1399 EU3 start, England is completely united, and France is fairly united (if you check the various expansions, you'll it's only that disunited to slow down its tendency to blob).

So, I think CA would better map to Centralization, and maybe some other mechanics (I'll pipe back in with some ideas there when I'm less tired and more sober).
 
Is this a personal preference thing? I'd much prefer to have vassals in EU3...

But think about it from this direction: if we're going to blobify the independent realms, why is the Holy Roman Empire exempt? In CK2 the HRE is a large and powerful realm with many vassals, and so is France (to pick one example). But now, after conversion, the HRE becomes a dis-united cluster of (non-vassalised) states, while france becomes a fully united (if decentralised) complete nation. Is this not a balance issue?

When converting for vassals, both the HRE and France become a set of member states, with the HRE subject to the HRE rules, and France (and the other kingdoms) requiring proper unification (with unification being easier for high crown authority).