We'd have to weight it according to rank, of course, but it does make more sense than just using the top-level-liege's opinion.
The CK2 To EU3 Converter Project
- Thread starter Idhrendur
- 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.
We'd have to weight it according to rank, of course, but it does make more sense than just using the top-level-liege's opinion.
Ok, just completed another game of CK2 you can use for testing. It has some interesting properties which will make it a good test of how the converter works with it;
www.zatobo.com/randomstuff/Scotland1399_10_16.rar
1. The Pope lost Rome, so only owns Baronies. Will the Papacy exist in EU3? How will this affect the Catholic mechanics?
2. Zorastrianism survived (!)
3. Several areas like France switched hands numerous times, could have interesting outcomes for Cores.
4. Several large Kingdoms no longer exist (France, Poland, Byzantines), again interesting for Cores. They still have de-jure lands, but no physical presence.
5. Scotland is technologically advanced for a Catholic nation, can use it to test tech differences.
6. Child-heir, not sure how the converter handles under-age heirs.
7. All the Hordes have a religion : Ilkhanate = Orthodox (the last Orthodox nation actually), Golden Horde = Catholic, Timurids = Shia
8. Pisa a republic grew quite a lot.
9. Several nations do not have historic capitals (so could affect CoT placement), for instance Scotland's is in Strathclyde and Paris has not been developed for some time.
10. Custom ruler, probably won't affect the mechanics, but I want to see it work
Let me know if it helps, and if you need any other things in particular done.
www.zatobo.com/randomstuff/Scotland1399_10_16.rar
1. The Pope lost Rome, so only owns Baronies. Will the Papacy exist in EU3? How will this affect the Catholic mechanics?
2. Zorastrianism survived (!)
3. Several areas like France switched hands numerous times, could have interesting outcomes for Cores.
4. Several large Kingdoms no longer exist (France, Poland, Byzantines), again interesting for Cores. They still have de-jure lands, but no physical presence.
5. Scotland is technologically advanced for a Catholic nation, can use it to test tech differences.
6. Child-heir, not sure how the converter handles under-age heirs.
7. All the Hordes have a religion : Ilkhanate = Orthodox (the last Orthodox nation actually), Golden Horde = Catholic, Timurids = Shia
8. Pisa a republic grew quite a lot.
9. Several nations do not have historic capitals (so could affect CoT placement), for instance Scotland's is in Strathclyde and Paris has not been developed for some time.
10. Custom ruler, probably won't affect the mechanics, but I want to see it work
Let me know if it helps, and if you need any other things in particular done.
My first conversion attempt into IN (as discussed here) failed miserably. I got a nice crash as soon as I attempted to load the save. I cut a corner when dealing with the CK2 save, since there were too many nations and it was assigning nations to even the mercenary bands that were currently hired, so I outright deleted those titles from the save (without deleting any of their armies or any references to the title. Assumed it wouldn't make a difference).
Here's the save in question: http://www.mediafire.com/?ayygeuagaghc2g6
I'd appreciate someone loading it up and seeing if it works in DW. I'd like to know if it's because I'm using IN or because I so haphazardly deleted the merc titles.
Here's the save in question: http://www.mediafire.com/?ayygeuagaghc2g6
I'd appreciate someone loading it up and seeing if it works in DW. I'd like to know if it's because I'm using IN or because I so haphazardly deleted the merc titles.
I've been reading through the Vassal and HRE threads as those are areas which I believe will be very important to the converter, and are from what I gather still open for discussion on how they are implemented.
Firstly, I would suggest that Vassals and HRE members are treated separately. Also, I realise that there are a number of Empires now (particularly with the Islamic DLC), but those Empires, along with the Byzantines should follow the "Vassal" model.
Holy Roman Empire
The HRE in CK2 and EU3 is a special unit, and we should continue to use the mechanics created especially for it. We can use different HRE decisions and diplomatic settings to simulate its effects. It should also be noted that I strongly believe that the player should have things to do in EU3, so even if they have "Absolute Crown Authority", this will not mean the HRE has become one state, but is rather very unified and powerful, and will make the final unity decision that much easier.
When creating the Holy Roman Empire, the current ruler is created using their largest Ducal / Kingdom title and the Empire itself is ignored. This means that the next two tiers of ownership can be used to create vassal states and spheres of influence. So if the Holy Roman Emperor's largest title in CK2 was the Kingdom of Bohemia, then they would start the game as the Kingdom of Bohemia (using the "Vassal model" to map their power), but otherwise would use the rules below based on CK2 Crown Authority.
The HRE relations with Vassals and Member states will be dependant on Crown Authority, and the different levels will provide a different level of starting unity;
Autonomous Vassals - Only the selected Electors will be flagged as members of the Empire, however other nations are given a relationship boost with each other at the start.
Limited Authority - Only the selected Electors will be flagged as members of the Empire, however other nations are given a relationship boost with each other at the start. In addition, the Emperor begins with a Liberation CB on all territories which were HRE in CK2.
Medium Authority - All HRE territory in CK2 will be flagged as a member of the Empire, but there are no effects beyond this.
High Authority - All HRE territory in CK2 will be flagged as a member of the Empire and "Call for Reichs Reform" begins the game enabled.
Absolute Authority - All HRE territory in CK2 will be flagged as a member of the Empire, plus "Call for Reichs Reform" and "Institute Reichsregiment" begin the game enabled.
Basically the main effect of Higher Authority will empower the Emperor in EU3, and speed the process towards hereditary / vassal / inheritance decisions, rather than fiddling with the system too much.
The beginning 6 Electors are determined through prestige (therefore allowing for 2 more to be created through the natural process to allow for some variation). I believe this was discussed before in a previous post about the HRE In This Post Here
Vassals
This section considers how nations are made in EU3, with the thought in mind that there will likely be more need for unification than is perhaps normal in the usual EU3 setting. What I have done is consider the political implications for each stage of Crown Authority, and applied different diplomatic attributes to the different levels with the ultimate goal being a unified nation. In this system we will be using the Empire, Kingdom and Ducal tiers, with the direct vassals being used to determine the 2 part relationship that EU3 allows. So, if an Empire has 1 Kingdom, 2 Dukes and a Count then all of those are "joined" to the main faction through the system outlined below. If that Empire has a Kingdom who itself has 2 Dukes, those Dukes are ignored as they are already a part of the de-facto Kingdom. If however its 2 Dukes are direct vassals to the Empire, then they are treated like independent states.
For the below examples the two tiers are the Liege (the top level of governance) and the Subjects (the vassals which comprise a nation, ie the Dukes / Counts of a Kingdom).
Autonomous Vassals - The earliest stage in which the Liege and Subjects are on roughly the same footing, with neither beholden to the other they just allow free military access.
Limited Authority - Military Access, Guarantee - This stage is more about a group of nations working together with a common goal rather than one faction or another dictating terms. The Liege has a Guarantee on each of their Subject nations.
Medium Authority - Military Access, SoI - The political links drawing the nation together are stronger, but there is still a large amount of freedom. The Liege has all the Subjects in their Sphere of Influence.
High Authority - Military Access, Vassal - The nation grows stronger militarily, and the Subject nations have become true vassals to their Liege.
Absolute Authority - Unity - All Subject nations are merged with their Liege with the same rules as had it been done through a Personal Union Inheritance.
Note; this system does create a high chance of divided nations beginning the game so the early game will be about unification much like playing with France. If we want to create the opportunity for more unified starting positions, then bump all the Authority consequences up one or more levels. It would also be possible (and should be done really), to allocate Cores depending on the Authority. Perhaps grant cores from Medium Authority and above (again this can be subject to personal preference options).
It is possible to go further than the above system by introducing Conquest CB events, much like what happens with England, though I have no idea whether it's possible to automatically create these events depending on save game data. If it is, let me know and I can create a more complex system which includes that.
Another addition that could be used (credit due to another post, but I couldn't find it again when I searched, sorry), is to create an average starting relation with each Subject depending on the sum of their own vassals relation to the top tier liege. By doing this, nations which struggled to stay together would find it harder to unite / more likely to split apart. My only issue with this system is how do we relate it to the Absolute Authority nations who are most likely to suffer from this poor relation feedback? Some kind of revolt risk modifier perhaps? Actually now that I think of it, we could use diminishing returns on relation modifiers from CK2, and instead apply more stringent revolt risk for poor relations at the higher authority levels which would make better use of the EU3 mechanics. Something along these lines;
Autonomous - 100% Relations
Limited - 75% Relations, 25% Revolt Risk
Medium - 50% Relations, 50% Revolt Risk
High - 25% Relations, 75% Revolt Risk
Absolute - 100% Revolt Risk
With different vassal providing different amounts, so it would need to be weighted that Kings opinion really matters, while a Count matters little comparatively. I would ignore Barons like CK2 does. Finally how long would this revolt risk modifier last? Is it even possible to do it like this?
We could also use Personal Unions as a more powerful version of Vassal's (as you can Inherit and get cores for free), however I decided to leave this out due to the increased importance of marriages in CK2. If there are chances for PU's occurring, it should be natural due to the choices made in CK2.
Finally we can play with government types to give more of a difference between Lieges and Subjects (and the different tiers of each);
Counts / Dukes = Despotic Monarchy
Kings = Feudal Monarchy
Empires = Empires (or else Lieges with more than the minimum required territories for the decision?)
For the mod we could even produce new government types to reflect the dominion size, so for instance a County would get 50% of the benefits of a Despotic Monarchy compared to the Dukes getting the full 100%.
One last thing; I realise that we can use Slider choices for Crown Authority too (or the Centralised / Decentralised in particular), however I think the above system better reflects the state of play at the end of Crusader Kings, and makes the early game of EU3 about creating the nation state proper, which the Player will lead through the ages to the 1800s (and beyond!).
Firstly, I would suggest that Vassals and HRE members are treated separately. Also, I realise that there are a number of Empires now (particularly with the Islamic DLC), but those Empires, along with the Byzantines should follow the "Vassal" model.
Holy Roman Empire
The HRE in CK2 and EU3 is a special unit, and we should continue to use the mechanics created especially for it. We can use different HRE decisions and diplomatic settings to simulate its effects. It should also be noted that I strongly believe that the player should have things to do in EU3, so even if they have "Absolute Crown Authority", this will not mean the HRE has become one state, but is rather very unified and powerful, and will make the final unity decision that much easier.
When creating the Holy Roman Empire, the current ruler is created using their largest Ducal / Kingdom title and the Empire itself is ignored. This means that the next two tiers of ownership can be used to create vassal states and spheres of influence. So if the Holy Roman Emperor's largest title in CK2 was the Kingdom of Bohemia, then they would start the game as the Kingdom of Bohemia (using the "Vassal model" to map their power), but otherwise would use the rules below based on CK2 Crown Authority.
The HRE relations with Vassals and Member states will be dependant on Crown Authority, and the different levels will provide a different level of starting unity;
Autonomous Vassals - Only the selected Electors will be flagged as members of the Empire, however other nations are given a relationship boost with each other at the start.
Limited Authority - Only the selected Electors will be flagged as members of the Empire, however other nations are given a relationship boost with each other at the start. In addition, the Emperor begins with a Liberation CB on all territories which were HRE in CK2.
Medium Authority - All HRE territory in CK2 will be flagged as a member of the Empire, but there are no effects beyond this.
High Authority - All HRE territory in CK2 will be flagged as a member of the Empire and "Call for Reichs Reform" begins the game enabled.
Absolute Authority - All HRE territory in CK2 will be flagged as a member of the Empire, plus "Call for Reichs Reform" and "Institute Reichsregiment" begin the game enabled.
Basically the main effect of Higher Authority will empower the Emperor in EU3, and speed the process towards hereditary / vassal / inheritance decisions, rather than fiddling with the system too much.
The beginning 6 Electors are determined through prestige (therefore allowing for 2 more to be created through the natural process to allow for some variation). I believe this was discussed before in a previous post about the HRE In This Post Here
Vassals
This section considers how nations are made in EU3, with the thought in mind that there will likely be more need for unification than is perhaps normal in the usual EU3 setting. What I have done is consider the political implications for each stage of Crown Authority, and applied different diplomatic attributes to the different levels with the ultimate goal being a unified nation. In this system we will be using the Empire, Kingdom and Ducal tiers, with the direct vassals being used to determine the 2 part relationship that EU3 allows. So, if an Empire has 1 Kingdom, 2 Dukes and a Count then all of those are "joined" to the main faction through the system outlined below. If that Empire has a Kingdom who itself has 2 Dukes, those Dukes are ignored as they are already a part of the de-facto Kingdom. If however its 2 Dukes are direct vassals to the Empire, then they are treated like independent states.
For the below examples the two tiers are the Liege (the top level of governance) and the Subjects (the vassals which comprise a nation, ie the Dukes / Counts of a Kingdom).
Autonomous Vassals - The earliest stage in which the Liege and Subjects are on roughly the same footing, with neither beholden to the other they just allow free military access.
Limited Authority - Military Access, Guarantee - This stage is more about a group of nations working together with a common goal rather than one faction or another dictating terms. The Liege has a Guarantee on each of their Subject nations.
Medium Authority - Military Access, SoI - The political links drawing the nation together are stronger, but there is still a large amount of freedom. The Liege has all the Subjects in their Sphere of Influence.
High Authority - Military Access, Vassal - The nation grows stronger militarily, and the Subject nations have become true vassals to their Liege.
Absolute Authority - Unity - All Subject nations are merged with their Liege with the same rules as had it been done through a Personal Union Inheritance.
Note; this system does create a high chance of divided nations beginning the game so the early game will be about unification much like playing with France. If we want to create the opportunity for more unified starting positions, then bump all the Authority consequences up one or more levels. It would also be possible (and should be done really), to allocate Cores depending on the Authority. Perhaps grant cores from Medium Authority and above (again this can be subject to personal preference options).
It is possible to go further than the above system by introducing Conquest CB events, much like what happens with England, though I have no idea whether it's possible to automatically create these events depending on save game data. If it is, let me know and I can create a more complex system which includes that.
Another addition that could be used (credit due to another post, but I couldn't find it again when I searched, sorry), is to create an average starting relation with each Subject depending on the sum of their own vassals relation to the top tier liege. By doing this, nations which struggled to stay together would find it harder to unite / more likely to split apart. My only issue with this system is how do we relate it to the Absolute Authority nations who are most likely to suffer from this poor relation feedback? Some kind of revolt risk modifier perhaps? Actually now that I think of it, we could use diminishing returns on relation modifiers from CK2, and instead apply more stringent revolt risk for poor relations at the higher authority levels which would make better use of the EU3 mechanics. Something along these lines;
Autonomous - 100% Relations
Limited - 75% Relations, 25% Revolt Risk
Medium - 50% Relations, 50% Revolt Risk
High - 25% Relations, 75% Revolt Risk
Absolute - 100% Revolt Risk
With different vassal providing different amounts, so it would need to be weighted that Kings opinion really matters, while a Count matters little comparatively. I would ignore Barons like CK2 does. Finally how long would this revolt risk modifier last? Is it even possible to do it like this?
We could also use Personal Unions as a more powerful version of Vassal's (as you can Inherit and get cores for free), however I decided to leave this out due to the increased importance of marriages in CK2. If there are chances for PU's occurring, it should be natural due to the choices made in CK2.
Finally we can play with government types to give more of a difference between Lieges and Subjects (and the different tiers of each);
Counts / Dukes = Despotic Monarchy
Kings = Feudal Monarchy
Empires = Empires (or else Lieges with more than the minimum required territories for the decision?)
For the mod we could even produce new government types to reflect the dominion size, so for instance a County would get 50% of the benefits of a Despotic Monarchy compared to the Dukes getting the full 100%.
One last thing; I realise that we can use Slider choices for Crown Authority too (or the Centralised / Decentralised in particular), however I think the above system better reflects the state of play at the end of Crusader Kings, and makes the early game of EU3 about creating the nation state proper, which the Player will lead through the ages to the 1800s (and beyond!).
Last edited:
What about Elective Monarchies -> Noble Republics?
The converter could have an interface if you want a united HRE (if conditions are met) or use the default EUIII system. Or whatever.
It should be made so that if I have an Absolute crown authority Elective HRE it should be only one state but with a Noble Republic, while an Autonomous vassals primogeniture HRE should use the default EUIII setup but with the HRE reform that allows hereditary succession.
The converter could have an interface if you want a united HRE (if conditions are met) or use the default EUIII system. Or whatever.
It should be made so that if I have an Absolute crown authority Elective HRE it should be only one state but with a Noble Republic, while an Autonomous vassals primogeniture HRE should use the default EUIII setup but with the HRE reform that allows hereditary succession.
Ok, just completed another game of CK2 you can use for testing. It has some interesting properties which will make it a good test of how the converter works with it;
www.zatobo.com/randomstuff/Scotland1399_10_16.rar
1. The Pope lost Rome, so only owns Baronies. Will the Papacy exist in EU3? How will this affect the Catholic mechanics?
2. Zorastrianism survived (!)
3. Several areas like France switched hands numerous times, could have interesting outcomes for Cores.
4. Several large Kingdoms no longer exist (France, Poland, Byzantines), again interesting for Cores. They still have de-jure lands, but no physical presence.
5. Scotland is technologically advanced for a Catholic nation, can use it to test tech differences.
6. Child-heir, not sure how the converter handles under-age heirs.
7. All the Hordes have a religion : Ilkhanate = Orthodox (the last Orthodox nation actually), Golden Horde = Catholic, Timurids = Shia
8. Pisa a republic grew quite a lot.
9. Several nations do not have historic capitals (so could affect CoT placement), for instance Scotland's is in Strathclyde and Paris has not been developed for some time.
10. Custom ruler, probably won't affect the mechanics, but I want to see it work
Let me know if it helps, and if you need any other things in particular done.
I've added it to our test suite. And I think that apart from games that get interesting things happening (as your did), we don't really need more save games until 1.07 is out.
Can you also upload a copy of the .eu3 save you got as a result of trying to convert? And the log.txt file? I'm curious at first what your EU3 install's difference might have done (it doesn't seem like much, if you got a save file out, most serious errors will stop the converter).
This is almost certainly a result of the difference in date formats (and possibly other problems, like use of new provinces and nation tags). HttT and DW use a more compact date format, and I'd put money on that being the one that the converter is writing all the dates in. IN can't read it and will crash.
Out of curiosity, why are you hoping to import it to IN, rather than one of the newer expansions?
Indeed they are, so your discussion is valuable. They are also contentious.
While I'm inclined to agree, you should provide justification for why the HRE gets the HRE mechanics (I agree that probably no-one else should). CK2 mechanics tend to drive the CK2 HRE in a different direction than the RL one, and there's really nothing that is similar to the Golden Bull in the mechanics.
I believe the current conversion mechanics should do this appropriately. Every member kingdom just ends up blobbed right now.
I would contend that CK2 HRE territory should always be EU3 HRE territory. The HRE mechanics in a 1399 start are pretty similar to what I always picture autonomous vassals are intended to be in CK2.
Thank you for reminding me of that bit of discussion. That's probably the method we'll use.
The system you describe is in fact necessary by EU3 mechanics. There can be no second-order vassals, and (unless I remember incorrectly) no vassals of junior members of a PU.
I'm of the opinion that vassals should always be vassals. Take France as an example. At the latest point you can start in CK2, it has autonomous vassals (which I understand covers the RL history pretty well), and at the start of EU3, everything in its cored territory is vassals (or held by another kingdom).
AFAIK those are a result of missions, so either are scripted or completely random.
Normally, EU3 revolt risk is a result of specifics: wrong culture, wrong religion, various flags, WE, or low legitimacy. But I seem to recall that Wales has some odd kind of starting revolt risk not due to these normal factors. So it may be possible.
PUs should be one of the ways we handle multiple same-level titles held by the same character (the other way being a merging of the titles).
I wouldn't give any non-CK2 Empire title the EU3 Empire government. They can take the decision on their own if they like, or else get their hands on a CK2 empire. But the other government ideas are interesting. I'll revisit them once I've implemented a few more things and seen how the current government methods are working. It really could be the distinction we need.
Hmm…possibly. Though if you check the wiki page on governments, it's not really a matter of stronger benefits, but different benefits.
I do disagree with you a bit there.
I'll try to write up a more direct version of what I think in just a bit.
[quote
That was my initial thought, actually. But this post did a good job of convincing me otherwise.
I agree, we should have an option that either allows the HRE mechanics or forces the HRE to use the same rules as everyone else.
Unfortunately, the EU3 HRE mechanics are too inflexible to allow us to do that. We can't give that reform without giving the five before it, which gives an HRE pretty close to unification.
That was my initial thought, actually. But this post did a good job of convincing me otherwise.
I agree, we should have an option that either allows the HRE mechanics or forces the HRE to use the same rules as everyone else.
Unfortunately, the EU3 HRE mechanics are too inflexible to allow us to do that. We can't give that reform without giving the five before it, which gives an HRE pretty close to unification.
I'm not convinced even that should allow it if the option for HRE mechanics is included. :-D
I thought the latest IN patch had updated them to the newer date format. My mistake.
On the original reddit post, he mentioned that he simply cannot afford the expansions at this time.
I should provide a positive vision of what I think about HRE conversion, PUs, and vassals. This is not a dictum of what we will do, jsut my current thoughts on what we should do.
PUs
PUs should represent a single character holding multiple same-level titles (if they are the highest level-title the character holds, of course). This should be the default state of this kind of circumstance existing in CK2 (at the moment, they all become independent). Succession type should influence the future course of these PUs, but AFAIK, the only mechanic we can use is the trust and relationship values between the EU3 nations.
Additionally, it should be possible for these PUs to convert as a single EU3 nation under some circumstances. At the very least, both titles should have the same heir. They should have the same succession type as well. And that succession type should not be gavelkind or elective. I'm not sure if that's sufficiently restrictive, though.
HRE
The HRE is tricky. Historically, it remained highly decentralized, but in CK2 it tends to evolve to Absolute CA pretty frequently. As well, there's no mechanic that's equivalent to the Golden Bull. So I think HRE conversion should always be somewhat configurable, simply because CK2 doesn't model it very well.
It may be we include the possibility for the HRE to convert as a united nation. If so, I suggest we consider the following factors: crown authority, succession type, power of vassals. CA's inclusion is obvious. Succession type is significant if you compare Byzantium; the HRE is the only Empire with an elective succession type. Vassal power is also significant if you compare Byzantium; the HRE starts with king-level vassals. As well, the historical Golden Bull vastly increased vassal power for the electors when it made them indivisible (that is, changed the succession type to primogeniture). So if we allow the HRE to be united at the point of conversion, it should have a high CA, not have an elective succession type, and not have strong vassals.
As for HRE territory, I think that all de jure HRE territory should be converted as EU3 HRE territory, and all territory of CK2 HRE vassals as well. With one caveat: EU3 decides a nation is an HRE member by seeing if its capital is HRE territory. So CK2 rulers who are in the de jure HRE territory but do not swear fealty to the HRE should have their EU3 capitals not be HRE territory (in the case of OPMs, there should be a CB we can give the Emperor to give a chance for reintegration).
As for vassals of the HRE, all immediate vassals should be independent, and the normal vassal independence rules applied from there.
As for HRE electors, I like both the ideas of using prestige and using the number of ducal (or above) titles held. I kind of lean toward the latter, but not strongly.
As for HRE reforms, I'm somewhat agnostic. We shouldn't grant many at conversion. Maybe we shouldn't grant any, and should just give lots of IA to allow the emperor to attempt reforms.
Oh, and in case it's not obvious, the current emperor should convert as the emperor. In fact, I think the fact that this is not done already is the only reason the HRE doesn't show up in converted games right now.
Vassals
First of all, EU3 limits what we can do here. Vassals cannot have vassals, nor can junior members of a PU have vassals.
As I see it, EU3 has two mechanics that together cover CK2's vassals/liege relationships: vassals, and the Centralization/Decentralization slider. The slider doesn't fit into this discussion too much at the moment, but that it helps cover the relationships is important to remember. I'll just say that I think the more CK2 vassals get merged into an EU3 nation, the more decentralized that nation should start.
There's a continuum of possible ways the CK2 vassal relationship can be modeled in EU3. And different circumstances in CK2 should determine where any vassal ends up on this continuum. One end of the continuum is what the converter is doing now: every vassal gets merged in. I believe M0rdred's idea of military access from autonomous vassals is currently the furthest the other end of the continuum has been taken.
Now, I think that we should have EU3 vassalage as the far end of the continuum. The possible methods of peaceful integration in both games are why. In CK2, you can integrate a vassal's territory into your own by stripping the titles away from their current owners (and there's a few way of doing so). In EU3, you can diplo-annex vassals, which could be considered the equivalent of using a combination of these techniques. If we convert CK2 vassals as EU3 nations that are not vassals, then you can only use war or add the step of diplo-vassalization first. And the CK2 mechanic of asking an independent (lower-titled) ruler to become your vassal is fairly equivalent to diplo-vassalization.
Now, we should have several points on the continuum, the more the better, I think. Some basic ones are: completely absorbed, absorbed but cores remain, EU3 vassal with liege given cores, EU3 vassal with liege not given cores (the last two being independent of the notion of getting cores for all de jure territory of your primary title). Other bits and pieces that can be included on the continuum: alliances, guarantees, military access, spheres of influence. Relationship values, being more transient, should probably not be included in this. Also note only the first two points on this continuum can apply to vassals of vassals or vassals of junior PUs, thanks to the EU3 limitations I mentioned above.
If we have a continuum, we also need to know where to place each vassal on it. I propose the following items to consider: CA, relative hierarchy of titles (a duke will be more independent than a count), similarity of cultures, similarity of religions, relative prestige, liege piety, vassal piety, if the vassal is de jure or just de facto, relative military strength, relative number of holdings.
PUs
PUs should represent a single character holding multiple same-level titles (if they are the highest level-title the character holds, of course). This should be the default state of this kind of circumstance existing in CK2 (at the moment, they all become independent). Succession type should influence the future course of these PUs, but AFAIK, the only mechanic we can use is the trust and relationship values between the EU3 nations.
Additionally, it should be possible for these PUs to convert as a single EU3 nation under some circumstances. At the very least, both titles should have the same heir. They should have the same succession type as well. And that succession type should not be gavelkind or elective. I'm not sure if that's sufficiently restrictive, though.
HRE
The HRE is tricky. Historically, it remained highly decentralized, but in CK2 it tends to evolve to Absolute CA pretty frequently. As well, there's no mechanic that's equivalent to the Golden Bull. So I think HRE conversion should always be somewhat configurable, simply because CK2 doesn't model it very well.
It may be we include the possibility for the HRE to convert as a united nation. If so, I suggest we consider the following factors: crown authority, succession type, power of vassals. CA's inclusion is obvious. Succession type is significant if you compare Byzantium; the HRE is the only Empire with an elective succession type. Vassal power is also significant if you compare Byzantium; the HRE starts with king-level vassals. As well, the historical Golden Bull vastly increased vassal power for the electors when it made them indivisible (that is, changed the succession type to primogeniture). So if we allow the HRE to be united at the point of conversion, it should have a high CA, not have an elective succession type, and not have strong vassals.
As for HRE territory, I think that all de jure HRE territory should be converted as EU3 HRE territory, and all territory of CK2 HRE vassals as well. With one caveat: EU3 decides a nation is an HRE member by seeing if its capital is HRE territory. So CK2 rulers who are in the de jure HRE territory but do not swear fealty to the HRE should have their EU3 capitals not be HRE territory (in the case of OPMs, there should be a CB we can give the Emperor to give a chance for reintegration).
As for vassals of the HRE, all immediate vassals should be independent, and the normal vassal independence rules applied from there.
As for HRE electors, I like both the ideas of using prestige and using the number of ducal (or above) titles held. I kind of lean toward the latter, but not strongly.
As for HRE reforms, I'm somewhat agnostic. We shouldn't grant many at conversion. Maybe we shouldn't grant any, and should just give lots of IA to allow the emperor to attempt reforms.
Oh, and in case it's not obvious, the current emperor should convert as the emperor. In fact, I think the fact that this is not done already is the only reason the HRE doesn't show up in converted games right now.
Vassals
First of all, EU3 limits what we can do here. Vassals cannot have vassals, nor can junior members of a PU have vassals.
As I see it, EU3 has two mechanics that together cover CK2's vassals/liege relationships: vassals, and the Centralization/Decentralization slider. The slider doesn't fit into this discussion too much at the moment, but that it helps cover the relationships is important to remember. I'll just say that I think the more CK2 vassals get merged into an EU3 nation, the more decentralized that nation should start.
There's a continuum of possible ways the CK2 vassal relationship can be modeled in EU3. And different circumstances in CK2 should determine where any vassal ends up on this continuum. One end of the continuum is what the converter is doing now: every vassal gets merged in. I believe M0rdred's idea of military access from autonomous vassals is currently the furthest the other end of the continuum has been taken.
Now, I think that we should have EU3 vassalage as the far end of the continuum. The possible methods of peaceful integration in both games are why. In CK2, you can integrate a vassal's territory into your own by stripping the titles away from their current owners (and there's a few way of doing so). In EU3, you can diplo-annex vassals, which could be considered the equivalent of using a combination of these techniques. If we convert CK2 vassals as EU3 nations that are not vassals, then you can only use war or add the step of diplo-vassalization first. And the CK2 mechanic of asking an independent (lower-titled) ruler to become your vassal is fairly equivalent to diplo-vassalization.
Now, we should have several points on the continuum, the more the better, I think. Some basic ones are: completely absorbed, absorbed but cores remain, EU3 vassal with liege given cores, EU3 vassal with liege not given cores (the last two being independent of the notion of getting cores for all de jure territory of your primary title). Other bits and pieces that can be included on the continuum: alliances, guarantees, military access, spheres of influence. Relationship values, being more transient, should probably not be included in this. Also note only the first two points on this continuum can apply to vassals of vassals or vassals of junior PUs, thanks to the EU3 limitations I mentioned above.
If we have a continuum, we also need to know where to place each vassal on it. I propose the following items to consider: CA, relative hierarchy of titles (a duke will be more independent than a count), similarity of cultures, similarity of religions, relative prestige, liege piety, vassal piety, if the vassal is de jure or just de facto, relative military strength, relative number of holdings.
Oh, and someone's working on a mod that will allow some of our crazy mod ideas to become possible: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?631824-The-OPM-Mod.&p=14331990#post14331990
What gives me pause is that there is no de jure Nubian kingdom, just a de facto one. It leaves me unclear on the cultural relationships.
And I agree on Tuareg.
Ok, just completed another game of CK2 you can use for testing. It has some interesting properties which will make it a good test of how the converter works with it;
www.zatobo.com/randomstuff/Scotland1399_10_16.rar
1. The Pope lost Rome, so only owns Baronies. Will the Papacy exist in EU3? How will this affect the Catholic mechanics?
2. Zorastrianism survived (!)
3. Several areas like France switched hands numerous times, could have interesting outcomes for Cores.
4. Several large Kingdoms no longer exist (France, Poland, Byzantines), again interesting for Cores. They still have de-jure lands, but no physical presence.
5. Scotland is technologically advanced for a Catholic nation, can use it to test tech differences.
6. Child-heir, not sure how the converter handles under-age heirs.
7. All the Hordes have a religion : Ilkhanate = Orthodox (the last Orthodox nation actually), Golden Horde = Catholic, Timurids = Shia
8. Pisa a republic grew quite a lot.
9. Several nations do not have historic capitals (so could affect CoT placement), for instance Scotland's is in Strathclyde and Paris has not been developed for some time.
10. Custom ruler, probably won't affect the mechanics, but I want to see it work
Let me know if it helps, and if you need any other things in particular done.
On review:
1. They work perfectly. Even that bit where a Catholic ruler is asked to give up their land for the Pope to take over. The Archbishop of Tyrol did so in this case.
2. Sadly, that one little province wasn't enough for it to turn up in EU3.
3-5. The converter doesn't do anything here yet, sadly.
6. Should have been fine, but there's some kind of bug that prevented him from being output correctly. Gonna have to look into it. Edit: fixed. And the converter just converts them. EU3 introduces regency councils if need be just fine. It's under-age rulers that gets interesting. But not so interesting that it's not converted correctly.
7. As a result, all but the Timmies have settled down. It's a little amusing to load up as the GH and have other hordes declare war right away.
8. Because it's all same-level titles, it fractures on conversion. It'll be really nice to fix that kind of thing in the future.
9. I wish we had a good way of making this affect things more. Sadly, CK2 doesn't store too much of the history. Or I don't know how to read it. Or both.
10. Converting the ruler history is my favorite feature. I just wish the ledger could handle putting pre-1000 dates before the post-1000 ones.
Last edited:
I'm working on getting the converter to estimate economies properly (helps the economy sliders actually work before a month has passed). If someone has the time, can you look into how we might tell if a province is distant overseas for a nation? That's the biggest factor ruining the efficiency of my methods.
Not really my area of expertise, but if I recall correctly (i.e. the wiki is correct) there are three conditions that must all be fulfilled:
- not on same continent
- distance from capital equal to or greater than 250
- no land-connection to capital
The first one can be checked using the province id:s from the continent.txt file in the map folder.
I found another file, positions.txt, in the same folder, that could possibly be used to check the distance. However, I'm not sure if it's got anything to do with "ingame location" or if it's only concerned with how the graphichal representations of things are placed on the map.
For the last one, I've got no idea.
So, I was trying to run a conversion (with the same game as earlier, later date)... and I ran into the error "too many CKII nations."
I take it this can arise when you've got some nasty civil wars going on in some part of the world?
I take it this can arise when you've got some nasty civil wars going on in some part of the world?