Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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 are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
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).
A very good point. It's the reason I've left the HRE mechanic as a config option: I'm not convinced on that point.
Though…looking at the 1337 start. The HRE has minimum CA, and only one King-level vassal. Maybe we could say empire-level titles are weak? (Byzantium only has duke-level titles [two lower] below and is small, maybe that's something that can inform us?).
In any case, I am more than willing to confess I don't know! That's why I keep all you analytical types around :-D
Oooh, thought on the phrasing of your question to me. Is there any was we could work this so it's configurable? Then we could leave it to peoples' personal preferences (with a decent default option, of course).
I think I know what happened here. We aren't stickyed yet. We probably fell to the second page.
Incidentally, is stickying something you ask for when you think you're popular enough, or do you just wait for it? Actually starting one of these threads is new to me.
The HRE isn't a single unified bloc like France in EU3 though. Wouldn't making a new nation called "Holy Roman Empire" in EU3 fuck with the entire HRE system/mechanics already built in? Better to just convert it to leave the mechanics intact.
The HRE isn't a single unified bloc like France in EU3 though. Wouldn't making a new nation called "Holy Roman Empire" in EU3 fuck with the entire HRE system/mechanics already built in? Better to just convert it to leave the mechanics intact.
That's what I'm saying: IF the HRE is to be converted such that it is a loose conglomeration of nation states (with electors, and so on), then it only makes sense that we do the equivalent for france (and all the other kingdoms) by converting vassals rather than merging them all in to the kingdom of France.
Idhrendur said:
Oooh, thought on the phrasing of your question to me. Is there any was we could work this so it's configurable? Then we could leave it to peoples' personal preferences (with a decent default option, of course).
Vassal Options:
1) Blobify (All vassals merged with lieges. Crown authority determines decentralisation 1-5)
2) Vassals (2nd and 3rd order vassals merged to 1st order vassals. 1st order vassals become EU3 sphere or EU3 vassals depending on Crown Authority as discussed).
HRE Options (Over-rules global vassal option):
1) HRE Nation Blob (As Vassal Option 1 - HRE becomes full nation with HRE tag.)
2) Vassals (No HRE elections, as Vassal Option 2 - HRE becomes feudal kingdom with many vassals)
3) Convert to full HRE (2nd and 3rd order vassals merged in to first order vassals. First order vassals become EU3 HRE member states. CK2 emperor determines emperor nation. "Strongest" member states (prestige?) become electors. All territory becomes imperial territory.
Regarding Crown Authority don't base your assumptions just on the bonuses it states, as those are made for the CK2 gameplay. If you read the description of each law then you'll see that Absolute Crown authority is the equivalent of an absolutist state, High Crown Authority is a state with strong beurocracy and that all the way down to the lowest one, which IMHO is an expression of the HRE in EU3 (not vassals, but still somehow connected).
So I would personally agree with
Something like this makes sense: minimal crown authority = sphere of influence, low = vassal, medium = incorporated (with cores) high = incorporated (no cores).
Except for maybe adding somewhere in there personal unions so that incorporated (no cores) is equivalent of Absolute authority and incorporated (with cores) of high.
I'm gonna go ahead and start figuring out the military.
In CK2 and EU3 the military mechanics are very different. In CK2 you have to raise levies from your demesne in time of war. In EU3 you build a standing army. In DV to HTTT I believe the method used was to create a standing army based on the potential size of your levies, and I believe this should be the method we use.
Troop types: In EU3 we have three: Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery. We have no need for artillery, so we need only consider the first two. Each nation at any one time can construct only 1 kind of infantry and 1 kind of cavalry at a time (in home territory, and if you don't consider mercenaries). This unit type is determined by his tech group and level. Therefore, the technology conversion must be completed before converting for military.
In CK2 there are several different troop types, each with there own abilities. They are Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Pikemen, Light Cavalry, Knights, Archers, and Horse Archers. So we can already categorise them in to Infantry (Light, Heavy, Pike, Archer) and Cavalry (Light, Knights, Horse archers). Since they are all of slightly different strengths (and all regiments must be of the same type) them some adjustment must be made to ensure that the army is of the appropriate strength by adding or subtracting soldiers as needed. (Something similar is done with EU3 to V2 to achieve the same result).
In CK2 a levy is of an organic size depending upon the number of troops raised from a given demesne. In EU3 an army is divided in to 1000 man regiments.
While some nations will have different (better) tech, this will be reflected in the troop types unlocked by higher tech levels, and so can be discarded.
Relative Worth of Troop types in CK2
In EU3 to V2 we used the stats of troops to determine there relative strengths. We can do the same here, and the default stats of the various CK2 types is listed in defines.lua:
Summing these values (ignoring maintenance and graphical factor), we get the following values:
Light Infantry: 20
Archers: 20
Heavy Infantry: 24.5
Pikemen: 26.4
Light Cav: 35
Horse Archer: 39
Knight: 50
Using these values we can determine the relative worth of any unit in terms of a "baseline" unit. For example, if we pick Pikemen and Knights to be our base examples of the units in question:
Step 1: Gather troop information from the demesne of the nation in question. This is handily stored in the province entry of the save file, and looks like this:
The first value is the current value, and the second value is the maximum value.
Step 2: Modify the values with the weighting already determined.
Step 2.5: Assuming the vassalisation option (previously discussed) has been selected by the player, some of this strength is reduced by as much as 40% depending on crown authority (if a vassal) or increased by as much as 40% (if a liege).
Step 3: Sum all infantry values together, and sum all cavalry values together. For each infantry and cavalry number, divide by 1000 to determine the number of regiments. Round up to ensure that each country gets at least one regiment each of infantry and cavalry.
Step 4: Add the correct number of regiments of the correct type (determined by tech level and tech group) to an army, and place it in the capital province of the new country.
This should mean that
1) An army
2) Of the correct strength, based on CK2 levy composition
3) With the correct units is created
4) In the capital province of the nation.
An example
In my Scotland game it is currently 1318. I have only two provinces in my desmesne (with 8 baronies), and I'm choosing to convert vassals rather than Blob. I have high crown authority. My capital is Gowrie. I will have tech level 2, and be western tech group on conversion.
The total number of troops in these 8 baronies is:
Light Infantry: 1860
Heavy Infantry: 1039
Pikemen: 1146
Archer: 1136
Light Cavalry: 206
Knight: 0
Horse Archer: 0
With strength weight:
Light Infantry: 1409.09
Heavy Infantry: 964.22
Pikemen: 1146
Archer: 881.06
Light Cavalry: 144.2
Knight: 0
Horse Archer: 0
Sum totals +30% for crown authority, with number of regiments.
Regarding Crown Authority don't base your assumptions just on the bonuses it states, as those are made for the CK2 gameplay. If you read the description of each law then you'll see that Absolute Crown authority is the equivalent of an absolutist state, High Crown Authority is a state with strong beurocracy and that all the way down to the lowest one, which IMHO is an expression of the HRE in EU3 (not vassals, but still somehow connected).
So I would personally agree with
Except for maybe adding somewhere in there personal unions so that incorporated (no cores) is equivalent of Absolute authority and incorporated (with cores) of high.
Why should the descriptions mean more than how the mechanic actually works? :S And the way the mechanic actually works is, the vassals are not magically merged with your country when you have high crown authority.
Why should the descriptions mean more than how the mechanic actually works? :S And the way the mechanic actually works is, the vassals are not magically merged with your country when you have high crown authority.
Because the mechanics are made for a different game With the description you get the feeling of what it is meant to represent, which was done in a way to fit a concrete game, which if designed differently, the mechanics would have been different as well. The reason why vassals are not magically merged into the country is because CK2 is a game with a strong liege-vassal aspect and having a game where there would coexist 2 different types of states (feudal and modern) would work in a totally different way.
And as you said, your goal is not to expand the CK2 timeline, but to give an alternative EU3 start. Well then, don't dwell so much in the mechanics (crunch) of CK2 but more on the description (fluff).
That's what I'm saying: IF the HRE is to be converted such that it is a loose conglomeration of nation states (with electors, and so on), then it only makes sense that we do the equivalent for france (and all the other kingdoms) by converting vassals rather than merging them all in to the kingdom of France.
.
I don't think that makes sense at all. The HRE is designed the way it is in EU3 specifically. Other countries do not have such a system designed for them so how does it make sense to create one for them/mod one in? I mean I just don't see a need to change things in a blanket fashion the way you propose. How does it make sense to change every other kingdom in the game to run HRE-style when only the HRE itself is designed to run that way? I just don't see how it makes sense to start messing with things that way. It only really makes sense to me to just convert them as is - convert France to France, Sweden to Sweden, HRE to HRE, etc. Of course it's your mod so you do what you like.
Not to mention however the majority of the counties & duchies that are your vassals in CK2 don't even exist in EU3 - so why create them? Wouldn't you need a map mod coupled with a tag converter mod? Kingdoms can't have kingdoms as vassals anyway so why would you make Duke vassals of Kings merely sphered or whatever?
Seems like it's being a little overthought, to me. de jure vassals = cores, those that aren't de jure = incorporated non-core. The HRE already has an entire system of mechanics designed for it and you would break those if you just changed it into one big unified state so just let it convert to be the way it is in EU3. This is after all a CK2 to EU3 save converter, not a CK2 mod for EU3. Breaking EU3's game mechanics just for the sake of having the HRE run CK2-style doesn't seem worthwhile to me.
In EU3 you don't have complete control over your provinces. Rebellions of various sorts (including noble rebellions) are common. The two games model vassal rebellions in different ways. CK2 models a typical vassal rebellion by having the vassal temporarily become independent. EU3 models a typical vassal rebellion by spawning a noble rebel stack.
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).
The ideal converter would convert overlapping years from the CK2 and EU2 history directly. Imagine if you load up CK2 and set the starting year to 1399, start the game and immediately save and run the converter. Ideally the result should be the 1399 EU3 scenario.
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).
The HRE being a large and powerful realm is somewhat ahistorical from what I understand. In CK2 game terms, it should steadily lose crown authority and taxation/levy power as time goes on. It doesn't, and I believe that this is a flaw in CK2.
Both France and the HRE had weak kings, but France had more potential for the king to gain control and centralize. The HRE was so big and had a tradition of decentralization. Paradox decided to create a special system for the HRE. Ideally we could have multiple HREs and convert every low crown-authority elective monarchy into something like the HRE, but in EU3 there can only be one HRE.
Ideally the converter would use the HRE for the largest elective realm with low crown authority, instead of always using it for Greater Germany.
Because the mechanics are made for a different game With the description you get the feeling of what it is meant to represent, which was done in a way to fit a concrete game, which if designed differently, the mechanics would have been different as well. The reason why vassals are not magically merged into the country is because CK2 is a game with a strong liege-vassal aspect and having a game where there would coexist 2 different types of states (feudal and modern) would work in a totally different way.
And as you said, your goal is not to expand the CK2 timeline, but to give an alternative EU3 start. Well then, don't dwell so much in the mechanics (crunch) of CK2 but more on the description (fluff).
If it will be helpful I will go through the CK2 and EU3 starts and try to figure out the mappings that an ideal converter would use. Then from there we can come up with practical mappings.
For example in terms of culture any county that has Italian culture and that is in the de jure kingdom of Sicily should convert to Sicilian. Then we can come up with criteria to split Umbrian, and then the rest will become Lombard.
Sorry if I sounded a bit pushy, didn't mean it that way, I just don't really understand the purpose of altering it. Seems counterproductive and a waste of time to go out of your way to make obsolete hard-coded mechanics is all I was trying to say.
I agree that blobbing should be based on crown authority. I also think one possibility for the HRE mechanics could be assigned to the largest Empire with Low Crown Authority and Elective Law (Also Catholic?)
I agree that blobbing should be based on crown authority. I also think one possibility for the HRE mechanics could be assigned to the largest Empire with Low Crown Authority and Elective Law (Also Catholic?)
For the record, I was NOT talking about adding a French holy roman empire with empire mechanics. I simply want vassals in CK2 to become vassals in EU3. You may not want this, and Id and I have already started talking about making this a configurable option. France would not have an "emperor" with elections, it would simple be a set of vassals under the french crown (or, in the case of minimal crown authority, they might be sphere members only).
I understand your concerns, and think them valid. In fact, this man speaks the truth:
In EU3 you don't have complete control over your provinces. Rebellions of various sorts (including noble rebellions) are common. The two games model vassal rebellions in different ways. CK2 models a typical vassal rebellion by having the vassal temporarily become independent. EU3 models a typical vassal rebellion by spawning a noble rebel stack.
I was talking about the HRE to illustrate a potential balance issue.
No mechanics are to be become obsolete.
UNRELATED
I feel I also need to talk about History. It is the nature of the game that our players are re-writing history as they play, and new and exciting a-historical scenarios present themselves. We therefore have this important distinction to make: History can refer to IRL History or to player's Alternate History, but that's not the important point.
Lots of people come to these converter projects with ideas about conversion mechanics, but there suggestions favor pushing the converted game towards IRL History, instead of attempting to convert, as accurately as possible, the Players Alternate History. I have had to explain time and time again to people with these ideas why this is a bad idea: because when you convert like this you are destroying the Player Alternate History, the history that he has been a part of for the past four centuries. This is not optimal.
continuing work on the first version of the converter mod, I will finish adding religions forward to the EU3 to V2 mod, and then work on cultures, plus localisations.
With the description you get the feeling of what it is meant to represent, which was done in a way to fit a concrete game, which if designed differently, the mechanics would have been different as well. The reason why vassals are not magically merged into the country is because CK2 is a game with a strong liege-vassal aspect and having a game where there would coexist 2 different types of states (feudal and modern) would work in a totally different way.
